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 .
Response to Amendment
As to the claim amendments, filed on 12/12/25, the previous claim objections are withdrawn.
Based on the claim amendments, the previous 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Regarding the claim amendments and remarks, filed on 12/12/25, some of the previous 112b rejections are withdrawn, and others are maintained.
As to the claim amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection is maintained and new rejections are entered to address the newly provided claims.
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 5, 6, 7, 11-13, 19-21 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.
In regards to claim 5, it is unclear what is meant by “against”, and how the first portion is against the circumferential direction. Are applicants intending to recite “in” the circumferential direction? Claim 6 recites a similar limitation and is rejected similarly.
As to claim 7, it is unclear what a pushing cavity is attempting to recite in line 3. How does a pushing cavity have a radius? Additionally, what is the pushing cavity defined by? How does the radius of the pushing cavity compare to the radius of the partitions? What makes the radius different? The radius between the center of rotation and first portion seems to help make up and define the pushing cavity, so it is unclear how the radius can be different without clarification as to how the pushing cavity is defined.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if a distribution system in line 3 is intending to recite a new distribution system or refer back to the previously recited distribution system. Claim 11 depends from claim 10 which already recites a distribution system. Based on the specification, the examiner believes they are intending to refer to the same structure.
Claims 12-13, 19-21 are rejected based on further claim dependency.
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 1-6, 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Schacher et al (US 20180321268; hereinafter “Schacher”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Schacher teaches a Laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus (Schacher; Title, Fig. 1-5) comprising: a revolving device (Schacher teaches a carousel 2/21 that revolves around axis 20; [32]), and a guiding surface (Schacher teaches guide rail 23; [34]), wherein the guiding surface comprises an open ring shape partially surrounding the revolving device circumferentially (Schacher teaches that the guiding surface 23 is an open ring; [34], Fig. 1-5), wherein the revolving device is adapted to push a laboratory sample container carrier supplied to the revolving device from an entry position to an exit position along the guiding surface in a circumferential direction (Schacher teaches that the carousel pushes the carrier along the guiding surface from an entry position to an exit position; [34], Fig. 1-5.), and wherein the guiding surface comprises an entry segment, wherein the entry segment comprises a non-convex shape, and wherein a distance of the entry segment from a center of the revolving device is greater at a start of the entry segment than at an end of the entry segment in the circumferential direction, characterized in that the entry segment surrounds the revolving device in an angle range between 40° and 70° in the circumferential direction around the center of the revolving device (Schacher teaches an entry segment as the region of space surrounding the entry from conveyor 10 at the lower right section of Figs. 1-5. Schacher teaches the entry segment has a protrusion/cut out and is also concave at the interior of part of the segment; Fig. 3-5. Schacher teaches a distance of the entry segment at the bottom end of the cutout near #12 in Figure 5 is further from the center than an end of the entry segment defined by an inner portion of the circumferential/circular wall of the guide surface; Fig. 3-5. The examiner notes that the cutout is the same in figures 3-4, which show the entry arrow and that #12 in figure 5 is solely used to help better define the region of space in 10 shown also in figures 3-4. The segment is just an arbitrary region of space and the entry segment of Schacher is the region of space encompassing between 40 to 70 degrees in the circumferential direction and extending from the cutout/protrusion and counterclockwise for 40 to 70 degrees along the circular guide surface; Figs. 3-5).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “adapted to…”, “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, Schacher teaches the Laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus is adapted to be coupled to a transport plane of a laboratory sample distribution system, wherein the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus comprises a driving surface, and wherein the revolving device is adapted to push the laboratory sample container carrier on top of the driving surface (Schacher teaches a transport plane with a driving surface on which the carriers and revolving device are moved; [30, 36, 44, 45], Fig. 1-3).
As to claim 3, Schacher teaches the Laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the guiding surface comprises an at least middle segment, wherein the at least middle segment is adjacent to the entry segment in the circumferential direction and comprises a circular shape (Schacher teaches the middle segment as an arbitrary region of space encompassing the circular guide surface 23 and that is adjacent to the entry segment as the initial circular portion, where the distance of the circular guide from the center is the same at the circular point of the entry segment and at the middle segment which is the region counterclockwise from the entry; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 4, Schacher teaches the Laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the guiding surface comprises at least a first portion adjacent to the at least middle segment, wherein a radius of the first portion is greater than a radius of the at least middle segment at least at the entry segment (Schacher teaches an entry segment as the region of space surrounding the entry from conveyor 10 at the lower right section of Figs. 1-5. Schacher teaches the entry segment has a protrusion/cut out; Fig. 3-5. Schacher teaches a distance of the entry segment at the bottom end of the cutout near #12 in Figure 5 is further from the center than an end of the entry segment (and also the adjacent middle segment as the region of space adjacent the entry segment) defined by an inner portion of the circumferential/circular wall of the guide surface; Fig. 3-5).
As to claim 5, Schacher teaches the Laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the guiding surface comprises a first portion and a second portion adjacent to the first portion against the circumferential direction, wherein a radius of the first portion is greater than a radius of the second portion (Schacher teaches an entry segment as the region of space surrounding the entry from conveyor 10 at the lower right section of Figs. 1-5. Schacher teaches the entry segment has a protrusion/cut out; Fig. 3-5. Schacher teaches the first portion as the furthest point of the cutout near #12 at the entry from the center, where the second portion of the back portion of the cutout that is closer than the first portion, but still further away from the center than the circular portion of the circular/circumferential guide surface; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 6, Schacher teaches the Laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the guiding surface comprises a third portion adjacent to the second portion against the circumferential direction, wherein the radius of the second portion is greater than a radius of the third portion (Schacher teaches an entry segment as the region of space surrounding the entry from conveyor 10 at the lower right section of Figs. 1-5. Schacher teaches the entry segment has a protrusion/cut out; Fig. 3-5. Schacher teaches the third portion as an arbitrary region of space encompassing the circular guide surface 23 and that is adjacent to second portion, where the distance of the circular guide from the center at the third portion is smaller than the distance from the first/third portion, where the third portion is the region of the circular guide surface counterclockwise from the entry; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 8, Schacher teaches the Laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the guiding surface surrounds the revolving device in an angle range between 205 and 290° in the circumferential direction around the center of the revolving device (Schacher teaches a carousel 2/21 that revolves around axis 20 to push the carrier in a circumferential direction from an entry to an exit; [32]. Schacher teaches the guiding surface surrounding the device in an angle of between 205 and 290 degrees; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 9, Schacher teaches the Laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the guiding surface and/or the entry segment are/is continuously in the circumferential direction and/or comprise/s a concave shape (Schacher teaches the guiding surface is concave on the circular portion, and is continuous in the circumferential direction; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 10, Schacher teaches a Laboratory automation system (Schacher; [2]), wherein the laboratory automation system comprises: a laboratory sample distribution system (Schacher teaches a transport plane with a driving surface on which the carriers and revolving device are moved; [36, 44, 45], Fig. 1-3. Schacher teaches the distribution system, which includes conveyors 10 and 12; [30, 36, 44, 45, 46, 57], Fig. 1-3), and a laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus is coupled to the laboratory sample distribution system, wherein the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus comprises: a revolving device, and a guiding surface, wherein the guiding surface comprises an open ring shape partially surrounding the revolving device circumferentially, wherein the revolving device is adapted to push a laboratory sample container carrier supplied to the revolving device from an entry position to an exit position along the guiding surface in a circumferential direction, and wherein the guiding surface comprises an entry segment, wherein the entry segment comprises a non-convex shape, and wherein a distance of the entry segment from a center of the revolving device is greater at a start of the entry segment than at an end of the entry segment in the circumferential direction, characterized in that the entry segment surrounds the revolving device in an angle range between 40° and 70° in the circumferential direction around the center of the revolving device (Schacher teaches the carrier handling apparatus of claim 1; see claim 1 above).
As to claim 11, Schacher teaches the Laboratory automation system according to claim 10, wherein the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus is adapted to be coupled to a transport plane of a laboratory sample distribution system, wherein the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus comprises a driving surface, and wherein the revolving device is adapted to push the laboratory sample container carrier on top of the driving surface, and the laboratory sample distribution system comprises the transport plane, wherein the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus is coupled to the transport plane (Schacher teaches a transport plane with a driving surface on which the carriers and revolving device are moved; [36, 44, 45], Fig. 1-3. Schacher teaches the distribution system, which includes conveyors 10 and 12; [30, 36, 44, 45, 46, 57], Fig. 1-3).
As to claim 12, Schacher teaches the Laboratory automation system according to claim 11, wherein the laboratory sample distribution system comprises drive means, wherein the drive means are adapted to move the laboratory sample container carrier on top of the transport plane, wherein the drive means are adapted to supply the laboratory sample container carrier to the revolving device and/or to receive the laboratory sample container carrier from the revolving device (Schacher teaches a transport plane with a driving surface on which the carriers and revolving device are moved; [36, 44, 45], Fig. 1-3. Schacher teaches the distribution system, which includes conveyors 10 and 12; [30, 36, 44, 45, 46, 57], Fig. 1-3).
As to claim 13, Schacher teaches the Laboratory automation system according to claim 12, wherein the laboratory sample container carrier comprises at least one magnetically active device, and wherein the drive means comprise a number of electro-magnetic actuators being stationary arranged in rows and columns below the transport plane, wherein the electro-magnetic actuators are adapted to apply a magnetic force to the laboratory sample container carrier (The examiner notes that the carrier is not positively recited and that limitations toward the carrier are related to function/intended use. Schacher teaches a transport plane with a driving surface on which the carriers and revolving device are moved; [36, 44, 45], Fig. 1-3. Schacher teaches the distribution system, which includes conveyors 10 and 12; [30, 36, 44, 45, 46, 57], Fig. 1-3. Schacher teaches that the transportation/distribution system can use electromagnetic actuators which interact with a permanent magnet on the sample carrier; [30, 57], and see also WO2013064665 which is incorporated by reference).
As to claim 14, Schacher teaches the Laboratory automation system according to claim 10, wherein the laboratory automation system comprises: at least one pre-analytical, analytical and/or post-analytical laboratory apparatus, wherein the laboratory apparatus is adapted to interact with the laboratory sample container carrier, a laboratory sample container carried by the laboratory sample container carrier, and/or a laboratory sample contained by the laboratory sample container supplied to the revolving device (Schacher; [3, 37, 55]).
As to claim 15, Schacher teaches a method for handling a laboratory sample container comprising using the handling apparatus according to claim 1 for handling the laboratory sample container carrier in a laboratory automation system (Schacher teaches the carrier handling apparatus of claim 1 which handles containers in an automated system; see claims 1 and 10 above above).
As to claim 16, Schacher teaches the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the revolving device is further adapted to push the laboratory sample container carrier on top of the transport plane at the entry position and/or at the exit position (Schacher teaches a transport plane with a driving surface on which the carriers and revolving device are moved; [30, 36, 44, 45], Fig. 1-3. The carriers are moved at the entry and exit position; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 17, Schacher teaches the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 3, wherein a distance of the at least middle segment from the center of the revolving device is constant in the circumferential direction (Schacher teaches the middle segment as an arbitrary region of space encompassing the circular guide surface 23 and that is adjacent to the entry segment as the initial circular portion, where the distance of the circular guide from the center is the same at the circular point of the entry segment and at the middle segment which is the region counterclockwise from the entry; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 18, Schacher teaches the laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the distance of the entry segment from the center of the revolving device is equal at the end of the entry segment to the distance of the at least middle segment from the center of the revolving device at least at the entry segment (Schacher teaches the middle segment as an arbitrary region of space encompassing the circular guide surface 23 and that is adjacent to the entry segment as the initial circular portion, where the distance of the circular guide from the center is the same at the circular point of the entry segment and at the middle segment which is the region counterclockwise from the entry; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 19, Schacher teaches the laboratory automation system of claim 11, wherein the revolving device is further adapted to push the laboratory sample container carrier on top of the transport plane at the entry position and/or at the exit position (Schacher teaches a transport plane with a driving surface on which the carriers and revolving device are moved; [30, 36, 44, 45], Fig. 1-3. The carriers are moved at the entry and exit position; Fig. 1-5).
As to claim 20, Schacher teaches the laboratory automation system of claim 12, wherein the transport plane is adjacent to the driving surface (Schacher teaches a transport plane with a driving surface on which the carriers and revolving device are moved; [30, 36, 44, 45], Fig. 1-3).
As to claim 21, Schacher teaches the laboratory automation system of claim 13, in which the at least one magnetically active device is at least one permanent magnet (The examiner notes that the carrier, and magnetically active device, is not positively recited and that limitations toward the carrier are related to function/intended use. Schacher teaches a transport plane with a driving surface on which the carriers and revolving device are moved; [36, 44, 45], Fig. 1-3. Schacher teaches the distribution system, which includes conveyors 10 and 12; [30, 36, 44, 45, 46, 57], Fig. 1-3. Schacher teaches that the transportation/distribution system can use electromagnetic actuators which interact with a permanent magnet on the sample carrier; [30, 57], and see also WO2013064665 which is incorporated by reference).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schacher et al (US 20180321268; hereinafter “Schacher”; already of record).
As to claim 7, Schacher teaches the Laboratory sample container carrier handling apparatus according to claim 4, with the pushing cavity as the space between the carousel and the outside guide surface, and where the size of the overall carousel, and therefore the radius, can be altered based on the number of containers, based on the number or processes required, and based on available space (Schacher; [16]).
Schacher fails to teach wherein the radius of the first portion is in a range between 150 mm and 190 mm and/or between 7.5 times and 9.5 times the radius of a pushing cavity of the revolving device, wherein the pushing cavity is adapted to receive the laboratory sample container carrier to be rotated and to push the received laboratory sample container carrier, and/or wherein the radius of the second portion is in a range between 40 mm and 60 mm and/or between 2 times and 3 times the radius of the pushing cavity, and/or wherein the radius of the third portion is in a range between 40 mm and 50 mm and/or between 2 times and 2.5 times the radius of the pushing cavity, and/or wherein the radius of the at least middle segment at least at the entry segment is in a range between 50 mm and 70 mm and/or between 2.5 times and 3.5 times the radius of the pushing cavity. With respect to the radius the portions, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the radius to be as small as possible to optimize the use of space while also ensuring that there was enough space for the components to operate and that there were enough samples on the carousel to enable proper processing, such spacing of the radius and pushing cavity being as recited in the claims, since the size of the carousel and number of containers can vary (Schacher; [17]). Therefore, it is evident that Schacher recognizes that the size/radius of the carousel is a result effective variable since the size/radius can vary (Schacher; [17]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to optimize Schacher’s radius with respect to the pushing cavity to be configured as claimed for the purpose of ensuring that the radius to be as small as possible to optimize the use of space while also ensuring that there was enough space for the components to operate and that there were enough samples on the carousel to enable proper processing as suggested by Schacher (Schacher; [17]).
Response to Arguments
Applicants remarks filed on 12/12/25 have been considered but are no persuasive.
Applicants argue on pages 8-9 of their remarks that “a radius” is clear in claims 4-7. The examiner appreciates applicants remarks, and in light of the remarks the examiner will treat the radius of claim 4-7 broadly.
Applicants do not provide any arguments towards the 112b rejection on pages 8-9 of their remarks, and therefore the rejections remain as previously applied (see above).
Applicants argue on pages 9-10 of their remarks that prior art Schacher does not teach or suggest “characterized in that the entry segment surrounds the revolving device in an angle range between 40° and 70° in the circumferential direction around the center of the revolving device”. Applicants specifically argue that the entry segment has a non-convex shape and a distance from a center of the revolving device that is greater at the start of the entry segment than the end. Applicants then state that the cited cut out at the bottom right corner of Schacher is not part of the guiding surface and that the cut out as cited by the office action is the exit region. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Schacher teaches an entry segment as the region of space surrounding the entry from conveyor 10 at the lower right section of Figs. 1-5. Schacher teaches the entry segment has a protrusion/cut out and is also concave at the interior of part of the segment; Fig. 3-5. Schacher teaches a distance of the entry segment at the bottom end of the cutout near #12 in Figure 5 is further from the center than an end of the entry segment defined by an inner portion of the circumferential/circular wall of the guide surface; Fig. 3-5. The examiner notes that the cutout is the same in figures 3-4, which show the entry arrow and that #12 in figure 5 is solely used to help better define the region of space in 10 shown also in figures 3-4. The segment is just an arbitrary region of space and the entry segment of Schacher is the region of space encompassing between 40 to 70 degrees in the circumferential direction and extending from the cutout/protrusion and counterclockwise for 40 to 70 degrees along the circular guide surface; Figs. 3-5. Since the entry segment is currently only defined by a segment which is a region of space, then the entry segment is just a region of space and does not have to be on an inner radial portion and could also be the outer portion or even both the inner and outer portions/areas of the ring-structure, and therefore the non-convex shape of Schacher is the outer portion of the “entry segment” structure, but is also concave at the interior of part of the segment; Fig. 3-5.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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