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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1-27 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) document(s) submitted on 07/31/2024, 06/12/2025, 09/24/2025, 11/14/2025, and 12/23/2025 are compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS document(s) has/have been fully considered by the examiner.
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 1-27 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.
Claim 1 line 6 recites “a grounded, conductive structure”. Claim 1 line 10 later recites “a movable grounding element”. It is unclear if the two features are distinct from one another or if applicant is intending for the movable grounding element to be the grounded, conductive structure. Claims 2-16 are also rejected by their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 4 line 4 recites “a container located at the level-sensing location”. Claim 1 lines 10-11 also recite “a container positioned by the movable carrier at a level-sensing location”. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the container at the level-sensing location in claim 1, or if applicant is referring to another container entirely. A similar rejection is also made over claims 11-13, 22-23, and 25 with respect to “a container”.
Claim 8 line 5 recites “the grooves of a container”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for any “grooves” of the container and it is unclear what applicant is referring to as said grooves. A similar rejection is also made over claim 24 line 5.
Claim 9 recites “a movable grounding element”. Claim 1 line 10 also recites “a movable grounding element”. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the movable grounding element in claim 1, or if applicant is intending to define a second movable grounding element. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting claim 9 to be the movable grounding element in claim 1.
Claim 17 line 11 recites “a portion of the container”. Claim 17 line 5 also refers to “a portion of the container”. It is unclear if applicant is referring to the same portion or different portions of the container in each instance. Claims 18-27 are also rejected by their dependency from claim 17.
Claim 19 recites “step f”. However, this is unclear because claim 17, which claim 18 depends from, does not recite any of steps a-e, and it is unclear what ordering applicant is attempting to refer to by “step f”. A similar rejection is also made over claims 20 and 25.
Claim 24 line 10 refers to “the container hold down arm”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for a container hold down arm in the claims and it is unclear what applicant is referring to by said container hold down arm.
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 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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda (US 2012/0003731 – hereinafter “Kuroda”) in view of Rutishauser et al. (US Patent No. 6,368,561 – hereinafter “Rutishauser”)
Regarding claim 1, Kuroda disclose a mechanism for performing capacitive level sensing of fluid within a fluid container supported on a movable carrier (Kuroda disclose liquid level detection section 51 detects an interface of air and a specimen liquid level using the change in capacitance between a dispensing probe 50 and a metal plate 4c disposed in the periphery of a specimen container 22; fig. 3, [0062]. Sample containers 22 are housed on movable carrier 2; fig. 1, [0052]), wherein the mechanism comprises:
a conductive probe (Kuroda; fig. 3, #50, [0062]) configured for capacitive level sensing by detecting a signal or change of signal when the probe, or a conductive tip removably attached to the probe, contacts the surface of the fluid within the container (Kuroda; fig. 3, [0062]), wherein the signal or change of signal is based on electrical capacitance between the probe or conductive tip and a grounded, conductive structure adjacent to or contacting the container (Kuroda disclose capacitance signal between probe 50 and metal plate 4c adjacent to container 22 is measured; fig. 3, [0022, 0062]);
a probe position sensor for monitoring a vertical position of the probe and recording the vertical probe position at which the signal or detectable change of signal is detected (Kuroda disclose washing control section 200 for detecting a liquid level position and controlling the probe driving section 53 to allow the probe to be lowered a given distance down to a blood cell suction level; figs. 2 & 17, [0063, 0066, 0104]); and
a grounding element, configured relative to a container positioned by the movable carrier at a level-sensing location with respect to the probe until the grounding element is in close proximity to or in contact with a portion of the container (Kuroda; fig. 3, #4c, [0062]).
Kuroda does not teach the grounding element is a movable grounding element configured for selective movement relative to a container positioned by the movable carrier.
However, Rutishauser teach the analogous art of a mechanism comprising a movable carrier supporting a fluid container with fluid (Rutishauser; figs. 1-2, col. 2 line 55 through col. 3 line 13) comprising a movable grounding element configured for selective movement relative to a container positioned (Rutishauser teach baseplate 3 configured as an aluminum plate that moves relative to a fluid container 15 via motor 6; figs. 1-2, col. 2 line 66 through col. 3 line 13, col. 4 lines 44-54, and col. 6 lines 36-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grounding element configured relative to a container positioned by the movable carrier of Kuroda to be movable, as taught by Rutishauser, because Rutishauser teach the movable grounding element is configured to allow a passive position in which the fluid container can be transported along the movable carrier, and an active position where processing of the fluid container can be performed by the mechanism; figs. 2b & 2c, col. 4 lines 44-54. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Kuroda and Rutishauser both teach transporting sample containers along a path to various locations for processing.
Regarding claim 3, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 1 above, further comprising: a motor; a threaded rod operatively coupled to the motor; and a bracket operatively coupled to the threaded rod (The modification of the grounding element configured relative to a container positioned by the movable carrier of Kuroda to be movable, as taught by Rutishauser, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Rutishauser teach the mechanism includes a threaded rod 7 operatively coupled to a motor and a bracket 8 operatively coupled to the threaded rod 7; figs. 1-2, col. 3 lines 7-13).
Modified Kuroda does not teach wherein the movable grounding element is attached to the bracket.
However, modified Rutishauser does teach a movable carrier and movable grounding element, wherein the movable carrier comprises a motor, threaded rod, and bracket for arranging the fluid container relative to the movable grounding element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the arrangement of holder relative and movable grounding element such that the movable grounding element is attached to the backet, threaded rod, and motor, because modifying the arrangement of the holder and movable grounding element is merely a reversal of parts and/or rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art, and would further provide the benefit of increasing the positional accuracy of the movable grounding element relative to the holder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since the modification amounts to merely reversal of parts and/or rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A) and (VI)(C).
Regarding claim 17, Kuroda disclose a method for performing capacitive level sensing of fluid within a container supported on a movable carrier (Kuroda disclose liquid level detection section 51 detects an interface of air and a specimen liquid level using the change in capacitance between a dispensing probe 50 and a metal plate 4c disposed in the periphery of a specimen container 22; fig. 3, [0062]. Sample containers 22 are housed on movable carrier 2; fig. 1, [0052]), wherein the method comprises the automated steps of:
moving the container with the movable carrier to a level-sensing location (Kuroda; figs. 1 & 3, [0052, 0062]);
a grounding element in close proximity to or in contact with a portion of the container (Kuroda; fig. 3, #4c, [0062]);
lowering a conductive probe, or a conductive tip removably attached to the probe, into the container (Kuroda; fig. 3, [0062]);
detecting a signal or a change of signal when the probe or conductive tip contacts the surface of a fluid within the container, wherein the signal or the change of signal is based on electrical capacitance between the probe or conductive tip and the movable grounding element that is in close proximity to or in contact with a portion of the container (Kuroda disclose capacitance signal between probe 50 and metal plate 4c adjacent to container 22 is measured; fig. 3, [0022, 0062]); and recording a vertical probe position at which the signal or the change of signal is detected (Kuroda disclose washing control section 200 for detecting a liquid level position and controlling the probe driving section 53 to allow the probe to be lowered a given distance down to a blood cell suction level; figs. 2 & 17, [0063, 0066, 0104]).
Kuroda does not teach the grounding element is a movable grounding element or moving the grounding element in close proximity or in contact with the container.
However, Rutishauser teach the analogous art of a method comprising a movable carrier supporting a fluid container with fluid (Rutishauser; figs. 1-2, col. 2 line 55 through col. 3 line 13) comprising a movable grounding element configured to move in close proximity to the container (Rutishauser teach baseplate 3 configured as an aluminum plate that moves relative to a fluid container 15 via motor 6; figs. 1-2, col. 2 line 66 through col. 3 line 13, col. 4 lines 44-54, and col. 6 lines 36-48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grounding element configured relative to a container of Kuroda to be movable, as taught by Rutishauser, because Rutishauser teach the movable grounding element is configured to allow a passive position in which the fluid container can be transported along the movable carrier, and an active position where processing of the fluid container can be performed by the mechanism; figs. 2b & 2c, col. 4 lines 44-54. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Kuroda and Rutishauser both teach transporting sample containers along a path to various locations for processing.
Claims 2 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Rutishauser and further in view of Opalsky et al. (US 2018/0282788 – hereinafter “Opalsky”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 1 above, comprising the movable grounding element and container.
Modified Kuroda does not teach wherein a portion of the movable grounding element is shaped to conform with the portion of the container.
However, Opalsky teach the analogous art of a mechanism for performing capacitive level sensing of fluid within a fluid container supported on a movable carrier (Opalsky; figs. 1, 4c-e, 8, & 16, [0088-0090, 0097, 0111, 0103, 0122]) comprising a grounding element shaped to conform with a portion of the container (Opalsky; figs. 1, 4c-e, 8, & 16, #516, [0088-0090, 0097, 0111, 0103, 0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the movable grounding element of modified Kuroda to conform with the portion of the container, as taught by Opalsky, because Opalsky teach the grounding element shaped to conform with a portion of the container allows the probe tip of the pipettor to be monitored simultaneously along with capacitance signal as the probe is lowered into the container (Opalsky; figs. 16-17, [0111, 0113]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Opalsky both teach a pipetting device configured to generate a capacitance signal relative to a metal plate upon contact with a fluid.
Regarding claim 26, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 17 above, comprising the movable grounding element and container.
Modified Kuroda does not teach wherein a portion of the movable grounding element is shaped to conform with the portion of the container.
However, Opalsky teach the analogous art of a mechanism for performing capacitive level sensing of fluid within a fluid container supported on a movable carrier (Opalsky; figs. 1, 4c-e, 8, & 16, [0088-0090, 0097, 0111, 0103, 0122]) comprising a grounding element shaped to conform with a portion of the container (Opalsky; figs. 1, 4c-e, 8, & 16, #516, [0088-0090, 0097, 0111, 0103, 0122]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the shape of the movable grounding element of modified Kuroda to conform with the portion of the container, as taught by Opalsky, because Opalsky teach the grounding element shaped to conform with a portion of the container allows the probe tip of the pipettor to be monitored simultaneously along with capacitance signal as the probe is lowered into the container (Opalsky; figs. 16-17, [0111, 0113]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Opalsky both teach a pipetting device configured to generate a capacitance signal relative to a metal plate upon contact with a fluid.
Claim 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Rutishauser and further in view of Aldridge et al. (US Patent No. 5,859,703 – hereinafter “Aldridge”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 1 above, comprising positioning the container at the level-sensing location (Kuroda; fig. 3, [0052]).
Modified Kuroda does not teach the mechanism further comprising a container positioner configured to contact the container and force the container into a repeatable, vertical sensing position.
However, Aldridge teach the analogous art of a movable carrier (Aldridge; figs 4-5, #60, col. 9 line 63 through col. 10 line 50) comprising a container positioner configured to contact the container and force the container into a repeatable, vertical sensing position (Aldridge; fig. 6, #64, col. 10 lines 6-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, because Aldrige teach the container positioner provides seating for the container to allow sensing and analysis at a predefined location along the movable carrier (Aldridge; col. 10 lines 6-50). The modification thus resulting in the container positioner being configured at the level-sensing location of modified Kuroda to provide repeatable, vertical level-sensing by the conductive probe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Aldridge both teach rotatable movable carriers that position a sample container along a circumferential path.
Regarding claim 18, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 17 above, comprising the level-sensing location.
Modified Kuroda does not teach the method further comprising the automated step of: contacting the container at the level-sensing location with a container positioner to force the container into a repeatable, vertical level-sensing position.
However, Aldridge teach the analogous art of a method for moving a movable carrier (Aldridge; figs 4-5, #60, col. 9 line 63 through col. 10 line 50) comprising contacting the container at a sensing location with a container positioner to force the container into a repeatable, vertical sensing position (Aldridge; fig. 6, #64, col. 10 lines 6-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of modified Kuroda to further comprise contacting the container with a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, because Aldrige teach the container positioner provides seating for the container to allow sensing and analysis at a predefined location along the movable carrier (Aldridge; col. 10 lines 6-50). The modification thus resulting in the container positioner being configured at the level-sensing location of modified Kuroda to provide repeatable, vertical level-sensing by the conductive probe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Aldridge both teach rotatable movable carriers that position a sample container along a circumferential path.
Claim 7, 9-11, 19-21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Rutishauser and Aldridge, and further in view of Forrer (US 2019/0049478 – hereinafter “Forrer”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 6 above, wherein the container positioner comprises: a container positioning ramp configured to be contacted by a bottom portion of the container positioned at the level-sensing location (The modification of the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, has previously been discussed in claim 6 above. Aldridge teach container positioning ramps 10/65/66; fig. 6, col. 10 lines 6-50).
Modified Kuroda does not teach a container hold down arm configured to contact a top portion of the container positioned at the level-sensing location and push the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with the container positioning ramp.
However, Forrer teach the analogous art of Forrer teach the analogous art of a mechanism supported on a movable carrier (Forrer; fig. 1, #1, #3, #10, [0022]), comprising a container hold down arm configured to contact a top portion of a container positioned at a location and push the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with a platform (Forrer; figs. 2 & 7-8, #15, [0034-0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the container positioner of modified Kuroda to comprise a container hold down arm configured to contact a top portion of the container and push the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with a container positioning platform, as taught by Forrer, because Forrer teach the container hold down arm allows the pipetting device to be extracted from the container lid after sampling fluid (Forrer; [0035]). The modification thus being configured at the level-sensing location to maintain contact with the container on the positioning ramp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Forrer teach pipetting devices configured to sample from a fluid container held on a movable carrier.
Regarding claim 9, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 7 above, wherein the container hold down arm is coupled to the a movable grounding element so that when the movable grounding element moves into close proximity to or in contact with the portion of the container, the container hold down arm is moved into contact with the top portion of the container to push the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with the container positioning ramp (The modification of the grounding element configured relative to a container positioned by the movable carrier of Kuroda to be movable, as taught by Rutishauser, the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, and the container positioner of modified Kuroda to comprise a container hold down arm configured to contact a top portion of the container and push the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with a container positioning platform, as taught by Forrer, have previously been discussed in claims 1, 6 and 7 above. Forrer additionally teach the container hold down arm coupled to a platform such that when the movable platform move into close proximity to or in contact with the bottom portion of the container, the container hold down arm is moved into contact with the top portion of the container to push the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact. Forrer; figs. 1-10, [0027-0037]. Accordingly, modified Kuroda further comprising the container hold down arm would result in the container hold down arm being coupled to the movable grounding element so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with the container positioning ramp).
Regarding claim 10, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 7 above, wherein the container positioning ramp comprises a sloped first end, a level center portion, and a sloped second end, and wherein the container is positioned on the level center portion when the container is positioned at the level-sensing location (The modification of the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, has previously been discussed in claims 6 and 7 above. Aldridge teach positioning ramp comprise a first sloped end 65, a level center portion 10, and a sloped second end 66; fig. 6, col. 9 line 63 through col. 10 line 50).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 7 above, wherein the container positioning ramp is shaped to conform to a portion of a path traversed by a container moved by the movable carrier through the level-sensing location (The modification of the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, has previously been discussed in claims 6 and 7 above. Aldridge teach positioning ramp coated with a low friction material such as polytetrafluoroethylene and shaped such that the container slides over the ramp as the container traverses a path of the carousel 60; fig. 6, col. 9 line 63 through col. 10 line 50).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 18 above, wherein step f) comprises the automated steps of:
contacting a container positioning ramp located adjacent to the movable carrier with a bottom portion of the container positioned at the level-sensing location (The modification of the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, has previously been discussed in claim 6 above. Aldridge teach container positioning ramps 10/65/66; fig. 6, col. 10 lines 6-50).
Modified Kuroda does not teach contacting a top portion of the container positioned at the level-sensing location and pushing the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with the container positioning ramp.
However, Forrer teach the analogous art of Forrer teach the analogous art of a method for operation of a movable carrier (Forrer; fig. 1, #1, #3, #10, [0022]), comprising contacting a top portion of the container positioned at the level-sensing location and pushing the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with the container positioning ramp (Forrer; figs. 2 & 7-8, #15, [0034-0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method and container positioner of modified Kuroda to comprise contacting a top portion of the container positioned at the level-sensing location and pushing the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with the container positioning ramp, as taught by Forrer, because Forrer teach holding down the container allows the pipetting device to be extracted from the container lid after sampling fluid (Forrer; [0035]). The modification thus being configured at the level-sensing location to maintain contact with the container on the positioning ramp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Forrer teach pipetting devices configured to sample from a fluid container held on a movable carrier.
Regarding claim 20, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 19 above, wherein steps b) and h) are performed simultaneously (As best understood, the modification of Kuroda to perform the steps recited by the method would be configured to perform steps “b)” and “h)” simultaneously).
Regarding claim 21, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 19 above, wherein the container positioning ramp comprises a sloped first end, a level center portion, and a sloped second end, and wherein the container is positioned on the level center portion when the container is positioned at the level-sensing location (The modification of the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, has previously been discussed in claim 18 above. Aldridge teach positioning ramp comprise a first sloped end 65, a level center portion 10, and a sloped second end 66; fig. 6, col. 9 line 63 through col. 10 line 50).
Regarding claim 27, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 19 above, wherein the container positioning ramp is shaped to conform to a portion of a path traversed by a container moved by the movable carrier through the level-sensing location (The modification of the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, has previously been discussed in claim 18 above. Aldridge teach positioning ramp coated with a low friction material such as polytetrafluoroethylene and shaped such that the container slides over the ramp as the container traverses a path of the carousel 60; fig. 6, col. 9 line 63 through col. 10 line 50).
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Rutishauser, Aldridge, and Forrer, and further in view of Gilligan et al. (WO 2020/098960A1 – hereinafter “Gilligan”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 7 above, wherein the movable carrier comprises a carousel that is rotatable about a vertically-oriented carousel axis of rotation and including a plurality of container holding stations disposed at angularly spaced positions about the carousel axis of rotation (Kuroda; fig. 1, #21, [0052]), and
wherein the container positioning ramp is disposed beneath a portion of the carousel and is configured to be contacted by the bottom portion of the container held in a container holding station as the carousel moves the container into the level-sensing location (The modification of the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, has previously been discussed in claim 6 above. Aldridge teach the container positioning ramp is disposed beneath a portion a carousel and is configured to be contacted by the bottom portion of the container held in a container holding station as the carousel moves the container into the sensing location; Aldridge; figs 4-6, col. 9 line 63 through col. 10 line 50),
contact between the container and the container positioning ramp slides the container within the container holding station to a position with the bottom of the container contacting the container positioning ramp (The modification of the mechanism of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, has previously been discussed in claim 6 above. Aldridge teach contact between the container and the container positioning ramp slides the container within the container holding station to a position with the bottom of the container contacting the container positioning ramp; Aldridge; figs 4-6, col. 9 line 63 through col. 10 line 50), and
the container hold down arm is configured to contact the top portion of the container to slide the container within the container holding station down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with the container positioning ramp (The modification of the container positioner of modified Kuroda to comprise a container hold down arm configured to contact a top portion of the container and push the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with a container positioning platform, as taught by Forrer, has previously been discussed in claim 7 above. Forrer teach the container hold down arm maintains contact with the container until the probe is lifted from the vial; figs. 2 & 7-8, [0034-0035]).
Modified Kuroda does not teach wherein each container holding station includes spring tabs extending laterally with respect to the carousel axis of rotation and configured to resiliently engage the grooves of a container held in the container holding station to retain the container in the container holding station, wherein the container is able to slide in a vertical direction between the spring tabs of the container holding station.
However, Gilligan teach the analogous art of a mechanism (Gilligan disclose a system 99; fig. 28a, [00180]) comprising a movable carrier (Gilligan; fig. 28a, #100, [00180]) for transferring a container including grooves formed on opposed sides of the container (Gilligan disclose plates 116, trays 320/322/352, and bottles 326/327 are transferred by fingers 168 of gripper 162. The gripper fingers 168 comprise protrusions 372 that are positioned inside grooves 374 of the plates/trays/bottles; figs. 13-14, 21-23, 25, & 28, [0061, 0071, 0077, 0087, 0091-0092, 00102]), wherein the movable carrier comprises container holding stations including spring tabs extending laterally with respect to a carousel axis of rotation and configured to resiliently engage the grooves of a container held in the container holding station to retain the container in the container holding station, wherein the container is able to slide in a vertical direction between the spring tabs of the container holding station (Gilligan; fig. 22, #378, [0092-0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the container holding stations of modified Kuroda to comprise spring tabs configured to resiliently engage the grooves of a container held in the container holding station, as taught by Gilligan, because Gilligan teach the spring tabs configured to resiliently engage the grooves of a container held in the container holding station provide feedback that the container is fully placed in the container holding station (Gilligan; [0092-0093]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Buse and Gilligan both teach a container transport system configured to transfer a container from one location to another using a distributor.
Regarding claim 24, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 19 above, wherein the movable carrier comprises a carousel that is rotatable about a vertically-oriented carousel axis of rotation and including a plurality of container holding stations disposed at angularly spaced positions about the carousel axis of rotation (Kuroda; fig. 1, #21, [0052]), and
wherein contacting the bottom portion of the container with the container positioning ramp slides the container within the container holding station to the repeatable, vertical level-sensing position (The modification of the method of modified Kuroda to further comprise a container positioner, as taught by Aldridge, has previously been discussed in claim 18 above. Aldridge teach the container positioning ramp is disposed beneath a portion a carousel and is configured to be contacted by the bottom portion of the container held in a container holding station as the carousel moves the container into the sensing location; Aldridge; figs 4-6, col. 9 line 63 through col. 10 line 50), and
contact of the top portion of the container with the container hold down arm slides the container within the container holding station down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with the container positioning ramp (The modification of the container positioner and method of modified Kuroda to hold down a top portion of the container and push the container down so that the bottom portion of the container maintains contact with a container positioning platform, as taught by Forrer, has previously been discussed in claim 19 above. Forrer teach the holding down the container until the probe is lifted from the vial; figs. 2 & 7-8, [0034-0035]).
Modified Kuroda does not teach wherein each container holding station includes spring tabs extending laterally with respect to the carousel axis of rotation and configured to resiliently engage the grooves of a container held in the container holding station to retain the container in the container holding station, and wherein the container is able to slide in a vertical direction between the spring tabs of the container holding station.
However, Gilligan teach the analogous art of a mechanism (Gilligan disclose a system 99; fig. 28a, [00180]) comprising a movable carrier (Gilligan; fig. 28a, #100, [00180]) for transferring a container including grooves formed on opposed sides of the container (Gilligan disclose plates 116, trays 320/322/352, and bottles 326/327 are transferred by fingers 168 of gripper 162. The gripper fingers 168 comprise protrusions 372 that are positioned inside grooves 374 of the plates/trays/bottles; figs. 13-14, 21-23, 25, & 28, [0061, 0071, 0077, 0087, 0091-0092, 00102]), wherein each container holding station includes spring tabs extending laterally with respect to the carousel axis of rotation and configured to resiliently engage the grooves of a container held in the container holding station to retain the container in the container holding station, and wherein the container is able to slide in a vertical direction between the spring tabs of the container holding station (Gilligan; fig. 22, #378, [0092-0093]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the container holding stations of modified Kuroda to comprise spring tabs configured to resiliently engage the grooves of a container held in the container holding station, as taught by Gilligan, because Gilligan teach the spring tabs configured to resiliently engage the grooves of a container held in the container holding station provide feedback that the container is fully placed in the container holding station (Gilligan; [0092-0093]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Buse and Gilligan both teach a container transport system configured to transfer a container from one location to another using a distributor.
Claims 12-13 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Rutishauser, Aldridge, and Forrer, and further in view of Haslam et al. (US 2003/0044991 – hereinafter “Haslam”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 10 above, comprising the sloped first end.
Modified Kuroda does not teach the mechanism further comprising a first roller at the beginning of the sloped first end to guide the bottom portion of a container onto the sloped first end.
However, Haslam teach the analogous art of a movable carrier (Haslam; fig. 18, #208, [0165]) comprising a positioning ramp (Haslam; fig. 18, #248, [0165]), wherein the positioning ramp comprises a roller at the beginning of the sloped end (Haslam; fig. 18, #250, [0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sloped first end of modified Kuroda to comprise a first roller at the beginning of the sloped first end, as taught by Haslam, because Haslam teach the roller provide a lifting mechanism which acts to lift objects onto the ramps (Haslam; [0166]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Haslam both teach conveying objects onto ramps.
Regarding claim 13, modified Kuroda teach the mechanism of claim 12 above, comprising the sloped second end.
Modified Kuroda does not teach further comprising a second roller at the beginning of the sloped second end to guide the bottom portion of a container onto the sloped second end.
However, Haslam teach the analogous art of a movable carrier (Haslam; fig. 18, #208, [0165]) comprising a positioning ramp (Haslam; fig. 18, #248, [0165]), wherein the positioning ramp comprises a roller at the beginning of the sloped end (Haslam; fig. 18, #250, [0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sloped second end of modified Kuroda to comprise a second roller at the beginning of the sloped second end, as taught by Haslam, because Haslam teach the roller provide a lifting mechanism which acts to lift objects onto the ramps (Haslam; [0166]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Haslam both teach conveying objects onto ramps.
Regarding claim 22, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 21 above, comprising the sloped first end.
Modified Kuroda does not teach the mechanism further comprising a first roller at the beginning of the sloped first end to guide the bottom portion of a container onto the sloped first end.
However, Haslam teach the analogous art of a movable carrier (Haslam; fig. 18, #208, [0165]) comprising a positioning ramp (Haslam; fig. 18, #248, [0165]), wherein the positioning ramp comprises a roller at the beginning of the sloped end (Haslam; fig. 18, #250, [0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sloped first end of modified Kuroda to comprise a first roller at the beginning of the sloped first end, as taught by Haslam, because Haslam teach the roller provide a lifting mechanism which acts to lift objects onto the ramps (Haslam; [0166]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Haslam both teach conveying objects onto ramps.
Regarding claim 23, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 22 above, comprising the sloped second end.
Modified Kuroda does not teach further comprising a second roller at the beginning of the sloped second end to guide the bottom portion of a container onto the sloped second end.
However, Haslam teach the analogous art of a movable carrier (Haslam; fig. 18, #208, [0165]) comprising a positioning ramp (Haslam; fig. 18, #248, [0165]), wherein the positioning ramp comprises a roller at the beginning of the sloped end (Haslam; fig. 18, #250, [0166]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sloped second end of modified Kuroda to comprise a second roller at the beginning of the sloped second end, as taught by Haslam, because Haslam teach the roller provide a lifting mechanism which acts to lift objects onto the ramps (Haslam; [0166]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Kuroda and Haslam both teach conveying objects onto ramps.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuroda in view of Rutishauser, and further in view of Bosaglia et al. (US 2019/0376990 – hereinafter “Bosaglia”).
Regarding claim 25, modified Kuroda teach the method of claim 17 above, wherein the carrier is contained within a housing (Kuroda; fig. 1, #2, [0052]), and wherein a container access opening is formed above the level-sensing location and configured to permit the probe, or conductive tip removably attached to the probe, to enter a container located at the level-sensing location (Kuroda disclose containers 22 are housed in each of the specimen container housing sections 21 and comprising an opening 22a which dispensing apparatus 5 suctions a specimen from at a specimen suction position; figs. 1 & 3, [0052]).
Modified Kuroda does not teach the housing having a top wall over the carrier, and wherein the container access opening is formed through the top wall, wherein the method further comprises performing the step of: during step b), automatically moving a shutter plate attached to the top wall from a first position covering the container access opening to a second position exposing the container access opening.
However, Bosaglia teach the analogous art of a method for operating a movable carrier holding a plurality of containers, wherein the carrier is contained within a housing (Bosaglia disclose mechanism 1 for providing selective access to containers 100 within a substantially enclosed housing 3; fig. 1, [0038]), wherein the housing having a top wall over the carrier, and wherein a container access opening is formed through the top wall (Bosaglia disclose duct 31 in the top wall of the housing 3 which containers 100 on carousel pass through; figs. 1 & 11-12, [0043]), wherein the method further comprises performing the step of: during step b), automatically moving a shutter plate attached to the top wall from a first position covering the container access opening to a second position exposing the container access opening (Bosaglia disclose shutter plate 41 pivotably attached to the top wall of the oven 3 and pivots between a first position covering the container access opening 31 to thereby prevent access through the container access opening to the container located beneath the container access opening; figs 4 & 7, [0045], and a second position exposing the container access opening to thereby allow access through the container access opening to the container located beneath the container access opening; figs. 9, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the movable carrier of modified Kuroda to comprise a top wall with a shutter plate configured to move between a first position and a second position, as taught by Bosaglia, because Bosaglia teach the top wall and shutter plate prevent heat losses from the housing when access to the container is not needed (Bosaglia; [0075]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In addition to the remarks of record, the instant claims define over the prior art because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest a shutter plate operatively coupled to a motor to effect powered movement of the shutter plate from a first position to a second position as the motor moves a movable grounding element into close proximity or in contact with a portion of a container.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
Tyberg et al. (US Patent No. 5,648,727) disclose a capacitive level sensing probe comprising a grounding plate shaped to conform to a shape of a container.
Sato et al. (US 2011/0239792) disclose an sampling apparatus comprising a shutter plate configured to move between a first position and second position.
Buse et al. (US 2014/0269159) disclose a movable carrier comprising spring tabs vertically aligned with a rotational axis of the carrier.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
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 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
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
