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
.
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, specification, and drawings filed 08/13/2026 have been considered and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/13/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the objection(s) to the Abstract, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objection(s) to claim(s) 13, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objection(s) to the Drawings pertaining to reproducibility, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objection(s) to the Drawings pertaining to sectional view & hatching, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn.
Regarding the objection(s) to the Drawings pertaining to shading, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said objection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said objection(s) has/have been withdrawn. The Examiner additionally notes that the stray mark was properly removed from fig. 3.
Regarding the 112(b)/2nd indefinite rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 7-9, Applicant argued that the amendment overcame said rejection(s); the Examiner is in agreement, therefore said rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and dependent claims, Applicant argued that nothing in Teich would have motivated a skilled artisan toward a vertical force-limiting mechanism. However, in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain feature(s) of the invention, it is noted that the feature(s) upon which Applicant relies (i.e., vertical force-limiting mechanism) is/are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claim(s) is/are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claim(s). See MPEP § 2145(VI) and In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, MPEP § 2111 requires that during patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and an Examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. The Examiner verified the meaning of the limitations pertaining to “move the sensor probe toward a lid of a cassette” and “reduce or eliminate a sustained or impact force of the sensor probe on the lid of the cassette” in the specification to see if a special definition precluded the plain meaning. No such special definition(s) was/were found. The Examiner identifies that the plain meaning includes movement of a probe toward any surface of a lid without a particular/specified direction. In the present case, primary reference Teich teaches a sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145) configured to move the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) toward a surface of a lid (fig. 2, frame 200) of a cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110) to measure a property of an environment within the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110), wherein the sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145) ([0034] “The compound storage and delivery apparatus 105 also includes a mounting block 140, which can reciprocate as shown by the double headed arrow, preferably powered by a motor (not shown), including an elevator mechanism 145. The elevator mechanism 145 is adapted to move the cartridge 110 relative to the stage 130, or well plate 120” and “mounting block includes a gas multiplexer 150” and “sensor probes 170 are adapted for insertion into the plurality of apertures in the cartridge 110, and may be used to gather data indicative of the state of cells disposed in wells in the multiwell plate 120”; [0040] “The cartridge 110 may be attached to the sensor sleeve, or may be located proximal to the sleeve without attachment, to allow independent movement”; [0045] “sensor probe 170 is attached to and extends orthogonally from the pneumatic multiplexer 150”). The Examiner notes that it would be operationally problematic if the elevator mechanism (145) caused the sensor probe (170) to forcefully impact a portion of the lid/frame during movement of the sensor probe through the apertures of Teich’s lid/frame (200), especially where unmitigated, and especially noting that the microplate may have different dimensions which may affect the movement therebetween ([0036]). The Examiner is therefore unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments that nothing in Teich would have motivated a skilled artisan to be concerned with Teich’s actuating mechanism in order to combine therewith the cushioning means of another actuating mechanism.
Further regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and dependent claims, Applicant argued that Teich teaches probes that are not moveable with respect to the cassette. However this argument is merely an assertion and lacks the necessary supporting evidence. MPEP § 2145(I) states:
Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection. See MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art.
The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
In the present case, in the relied upon embodiment Teich teaches a sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145) configured to move the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) toward a surface of a lid (fig. 2, frame 200) of a cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110) to measure a property of an environment within the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110), wherein the sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145) ([0034] “The compound storage and delivery apparatus 105 also includes a mounting block 140, which can reciprocate as shown by the double headed arrow, preferably powered by a motor (not shown), including an elevator mechanism 145. The elevator mechanism 145 is adapted to move the cartridge 110 relative to the stage 130, or well plate 120” and “mounting block includes a gas multiplexer 150” and “sensor probes 170 are adapted for insertion into the plurality of apertures in the cartridge 110, and may be used to gather data indicative of the state of cells disposed in wells in the multiwell plate 120”; [0040] “The cartridge 110 may be attached to the sensor sleeve, or may be located proximal to the sleeve without attachment, to allow independent movement”; [0045] “sensor probe 170 is attached to and extends orthogonally from the pneumatic multiplexer 150”; [0041] “cartridge 110 as a cover for multiwell plate 120”). The Examiner notes that in Teich the sensor probe (170) is attached to—and moved by—the elevator mechanism (145) to extend through the apertures of the lid/frame (200) and into a well plate (120) sandwiched between the base (130) and the block (140). The “fixed” is with respect to the pneumatic multiplexer 150, and the sensor probes are inserted into the cartridge—which acts as a cover for the multiwell plate—by the elevator mechanism moving the mounted multiplexor. See also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (“Attorney’s argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence").
Furthermore, while Applicant’s arguments of inoperability of Teich’s insertion of sensor probes into the cartridge/cassette by the elevator has been considered, the Examiner’s assessment of the prior art is based upon MPEP § 2121(I) and MPEP § 716.07:
2121(I)
When the reference relied on expressly anticipates or makes obvious all of the elements of the claimed invention, the reference is presumed to be operable. Once such a reference is found, the burden is on applicant to provide facts rebutting the presumption of operability. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980). See also MPEP § 716.07.”
716.07 (omissions of paragraphs for brevity)
Affidavits or declarations attacking the operability of a patent cited as a reference must rebut the presumption of operability by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Sasse, 629 F.2d 675, 207 USPQ 107 (CCPA 1980)…
Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts inoperability in features of the reference which are not relied upon, the reference is still effective as to other features which are operative. In re Shepherd, 172 F.2d 560, 80 USPQ 495 (CCPA 1949.
Where the affidavit or declaration presented asserts that the reference relied upon is inoperative, the claims represented by applicant must distinguish from the alleged inoperative reference disclosure. In re Crosby, 157 F.2d 198, 71 USPQ 73 (CCPA 1946). See also In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 31 USPQ2d 1817 (Fed. Cir. 1994)…
As Applicant has not sufficiently provided facts rebutting the presumption of operability of Teich’s elevator mechanism for insertion of Teich’s sensor probe into Teich’s cartridge through independent movement thereof, the Examiner retains that Teich’s actuated sensor probe insertion movement is operable.
Furthermore, while the Examiner continues to acknowledge that Teich is silent to a float mechanism of the elevator assembly that is configured to reduce or eliminate a sustained or impact force, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the present case, Niemeyer teaches an apparatus (fig. 11, analyzer 200) (Apparatus “ANALYZER FOR TESTING A SAMPLE”; Abstract “An analyzer for testing a biological sample, wherein the analyzer has a guide apparatus for guiding a clamping unit and/or a connection unit, wherein the guide apparatus is adapted to compensate misalignments. The analyzer has a rack for the clamping unit and/or connection unit, and wherein the rack is supported by a flexible cushion within a housing of the analyzer”) comprising:
a movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) configured to move with respect to a cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100), wherein the system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) comprises
a float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) configured to reduce or eliminate a sustained or impact force on the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100) ([0043]; [0045]; [0373]; [0456]; [0605]; [0244]; [0238]; [0248]; [0434] and), wherein the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) comprises foam cushioning ([0609]; [0048]; [0049]; [0201]; [0227]; [0228]), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Niemeyer pneumatically controlled mechanisms & associated method for movement which float, cushion, & vertically/horizontally compensate for misalignment with Teich’s sensor elevator for the expected benefits of high speed durable actuation which can compensate for misalignments and cushion/dampen impacts/vibrations and thus make Teich’s apparatus & associated method more reliable. The Examiner additionally notes that in Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006): “Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.” In the present case, making an actuator mechanism having a float and cushioning affect is a common-sense enhancement that is desirable for making the actuated mechanism more efficient, reliable, and making the device as a whole more durable to repeated use. See MPEP § 2144(II). Therefore Teich as modified by Niemeyer suggests a float mechanism (Niemeyer’s float mechanism comprising cushioning) configured to reduce or eliminate a sustained or impact force of the sensor probe (Teich sensor probe 170) on the lid (Teich frame 200) of the cassette (Teich cartridge 110).
Yet further regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and dependent claims, Applicant argued that combining Niemeyer’s cushioned float-mounting actuation means with Teich’s elevator would not supply the missing float mechanism of Teich’s elevator. The Examiner notes that “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. See also In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (skill is presumed on the part of one of ordinary skill in the art) and In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390 (CCPA 1969). In the present case, Teich teaches an elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145), and Niemeyer teaches a float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) configured to reduce or eliminate a sustained or impact force on the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100) ([0043] “each of the actuators, in particular each actuation element thereof, is spring mounted and/or flexible in and/or transverse to the direction of actuation”; [0045] “Due to the flexibility of the actuators it is possible to compensate misalignments between the cartridge and the clamping unit, in particular its actuators, and/or to limit the force exerted by the clamping unit or its actuators on the cartridge”; [0373] “float-mounted”; [0456] “As already mentioned, the intermediate unit 230 is preferably guided in a tiltable/floating manner, in particular in order to compensate radial and/or angular misalignments”; [0605] “float-mounted and/or mounted with a radial play to the clamping unit 232”; [0244] “the drive apparatus 233 is adapted to push the clamping unit 232, intermediate unit 230, connection unit 231 and/or the lifting apparatus 238 in order to clamp/position/align the cartridge 100”), wherein the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) comprises a linear slide and one or more springs (fig. 11, springs 284B & 285B) ([0238] “The intermediate unit 230, the connection unit 231, the clamping unit 232 and/or the lifting apparatus 238 are preferably movable/slidable relative to one another and/or back and forth, in particular in order to hold the cartridge 100 in a clamped manner for the test and/or in a test position and/or to release/eject the cartridge 100 after the test has been completed”; [0248] “slidable”; [0434] “at least one coupling spring” and “a coil and/or helical spring”), wherein the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) comprises foam cushioning ([0609] “analyzer 200 comprises a cushion 283 for holding the rack 237 and/or the connection unit 231 within the housing 212, preferably wherein the cushion 283 is flexible and/or made of foam”; [0048] “the cushion preferably serves as a damper and/or absorbs forces/vibrations. Both, inner forces/vibration, e.g., causes by the moving parts of the analyzer, and outer forces/vibration, e.g., caused by a hit/stroke on the housing, are minimized and/or at least partially absorbed by means of the cushion. In this way, damages of the analyzer or (negative) impacts on the test are prevented or at least minimized, e.g., when the analyzer is subjected to an impact”; [0049] “the cushion acts as a buffer and/or a crumble/deformable zone between the housing and the inner parts of the analyzer, in particular the rack, the connection unit, the clamping unit, the guide apparatus and/or the cartridge”; [0201] “cushion 283 is preferably adapted to hold, support, bear, align and/or position some or all parts of the analyze”; [0227] “Mostly preferred, the cushion 283 is made of foam, in particular a foamed/expanded material, e.g., expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene, expanded polystyrene or the like”; [0228] “the cushion 283 preferably serves as a damper and/or absorbs vibration/shocks. In this way, the analyzer 200 is protected against external impacts that might influence the test and/or its results”), and it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to combine Niemeyer’s cushioned float mechanism for an actuation means with Teich’s actuation means--which is an elevator—thereby providing the aforementioned and expected benefits of cushioning & compensating for misalignments as put forth in detail in the preceding paragraph.
Even yet further regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and dependent claims, Applicant argued that the Examiner has not explained how Niemeyer’s cushioned float-mounting for an actuator means could be combined with Teich’s actuation means—which is an elevator—to arrive at the claimed elevator mechanism comprising a float mechanism. However, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner emphasizes that “[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review”, In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and that “Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures”, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973). See MPEP § 2145(III). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that the combination of prior art does not require bodily incorporation of all aspects of said prior art, and instead it is the Examiner’s position that the combination of references would reasonably suggest Niemeyer’s cushioned float-mounting for actuation means could be combined with Teich’s actuation means (elevator).
Even yet further regarding the 103 prior art obviousness rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and dependent claims, Applicant argued that the proposed combination is not tied to the specific teachings of the references to address the problems of the claimed invention. However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP § 2145(X)(A) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that cushioned float-mounting for an actuation means of an analyzer is a sufficiently specific teaching by Niemeyer which can be reasonably combined with Teich’s actuation means (specifically an elevator) also for analyzer and thereby providing the taught cushioning/floating of Niemeyer to compensate for any misalignment whether horizontal and/or vertical which might have a negative impact on analyzer functionality even if there wear, deflection, thermal-expansion, manufacturing inaccuracy/errors, etc. (Niemeyer [0016]-[0017]) and therefore maintaining reliability (Niemeyer [0011]).
Finally, the Examiner notes for Applicant that with respect to the claim interpretation of independent claim 1, that while the Examiner has applied prior art in a manner consistent with the disclosure and in an effort to promote compact prosecution, the cassette (including therewith the lid thereof) is not actually a claimed element and therefore the patentable weight of Applicant’s arguments pertaining thereto are in view thereof.
For all of the above reasons and for the reasons as put forth in the rejections below, the Examiner retains the 103 prior art obviousness rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant previously cited Teich et al (US 20160077083 A1; hereafter “Teich”) in view of previously cited Niemeyer et al (US 20200101465 A1; hereafter “Niemeyer”).
Regarding independent claim 1,
Teich teaches (best shown in fig. 1) an apparatus (fig. 1, apparatus 100) (Title “CELL ANALYSIS APPARATUS AND METHOD”; Abstract; [0009] “The cartridge also includes at least one of a) a sensor or portion thereof adapted to analyze a constituent”) comprising:
a sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) ([0011] “the sensor is adapted to analyze”; [0045] “sensor probe 170 is attached to and extends orthogonally from the pneumatic multiplexer 150”; [0034] “sensor probes 170 are adapted for insertion into the plurality of apertures in the cartridge 110, and may be used to gather data indicative of the state of cells disposed in wells in the multiwell plate 120”; [0010] “The sensor (or portion thereof or aperture adapted to receive a sensor) preferably is compliantly attached to the planar element so as to accommodate slight misalignment of the probe structure with the wells of microplate”); and
a sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145) configured to move the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) toward a surface of a lid (fig. 2, frame 200) of a cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110) to measure a property of an environment within the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110), wherein the sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145) ([0034] “The compound storage and delivery apparatus 105 also includes a mounting block 140, which can reciprocate as shown by the double headed arrow, preferably powered by a motor (not shown), including an elevator mechanism 145. The elevator mechanism 145 is adapted to move the cartridge 110 relative to the stage 130, or well plate 120” and “The mounting block includes a gas multiplexer 150” and “sensor probes 170 are adapted for insertion into the plurality of apertures in the cartridge 110, and may be used to gather data indicative of the state of cells disposed in wells in the multiwell plate 120”, the Examiner notes the holding by the cartridge holder is optional; [0040] “The cartridge 110 may be attached to the sensor sleeve, or may be located proximal to the sleeve without attachment, to allow independent movement”; [0041] “The configuration of cartridge 110 as a cover for multiwell plate 120 may help prevent evaporation or contamination of a sample or media disposed in wells 220”; [0045] “sensor probe 170 is attached to and extends orthogonally from the pneumatic multiplexer 150”; the Examiner emphasizes that the sensor probe 170 is attached to multiplexer 150 which is part of mounting block 140 which is moved by elevator mechanism 145, and that the sensor probes are inserted into the apertures of the cartridge, the cartridge being a cover for multiwell plate 120).
Teich does not teach a float mechanism configured to reduce or eliminate a sustained or impact force of the sensor probe on the lid of the cassette.
Niemeyer teaches an apparatus (fig. 11, analyzer 200) (Apparatus “ANALYZER FOR TESTING A SAMPLE”; Abstract “An analyzer for testing a biological sample, wherein the analyzer has a guide apparatus for guiding a clamping unit and/or a connection unit, wherein the guide apparatus is adapted to compensate misalignments. The analyzer has a rack for the clamping unit and/or connection unit, and wherein the rack is supported by a flexible cushion within a housing of the analyzer”; [0051] ““analyzer” is preferably understood to refer to a preferably mobile instrument/apparatus, which is designed to chemically, biologically and/or physically tests and/or analyze a sample or a component thereof, preferably in and/or by means of a cartridge containing the sample”) comprising:
a movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) configured to move with respect to a cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100), wherein the system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) comprises
a float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) configured to reduce or eliminate a sustained or impact force on the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100) ([0043] “each of the actuators, in particular each actuation element thereof, is spring mounted and/or flexible in and/or transverse to the direction of actuation”; [0045] “Due to the flexibility of the actuators it is possible to compensate misalignments between the cartridge and the clamping unit, in particular its actuators, and/or to limit the force exerted by the clamping unit or its actuators on the cartridge”; [0373] “float-mounted”; [0456] “As already mentioned, the intermediate unit 230 is preferably guided in a tiltable/floating manner, in particular in order to compensate radial and/or angular misalignments”; [0605] “float-mounted and/or mounted with a radial play to the clamping unit 232”; [0244] “the drive apparatus 233 is adapted to push the clamping unit 232, intermediate unit 230, connection unit 231 and/or the lifting apparatus 238 in order to clamp/position/align the cartridge 100”), wherein the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) comprises a linear slide and one or more springs (fig. 11, springs 284B & 285B) ([0238] “The intermediate unit 230, the connection unit 231, the clamping unit 232 and/or the lifting apparatus 238 are preferably movable/slidable relative to one another and/or back and forth, in particular in order to hold the cartridge 100 in a clamped manner for the test and/or in a test position and/or to release/eject the cartridge 100 after the test has been completed”; [0248] “slidable”; [0434] “at least one coupling spring” and “a coil and/or helical spring”), wherein the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) comprises foam cushioning ([0609] “analyzer 200 comprises a cushion 283 for holding the rack 237 and/or the connection unit 231 within the housing 212, preferably wherein the cushion 283 is flexible and/or made of foam”; [0048] “the cushion preferably serves as a damper and/or absorbs forces/vibrations. Both, inner forces/vibration, e.g., causes by the moving parts of the analyzer, and outer forces/vibration, e.g., caused by a hit/stroke on the housing, are minimized and/or at least partially absorbed by means of the cushion. In this way, damages of the analyzer or (negative) impacts on the test are prevented or at least minimized, e.g., when the analyzer is subjected to an impact”; [0049] “the cushion acts as a buffer and/or a crumble/deformable zone between the housing and the inner parts of the analyzer, in particular the rack, the connection unit, the clamping unit, the guide apparatus and/or the cartridge”; [0201] “cushion 283 is preferably adapted to hold, support, bear, align and/or position some or all parts of the analyze”; [0227] “Mostly preferred, the cushion 283 is made of foam, in particular a foamed/expanded material, e.g., expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene, expanded polystyrene or the like”; [0228] “the cushion 283 preferably serves as a damper and/or absorbs vibration/shocks. In this way, the analyzer 200 is protected against external impacts that might influence the test and/or its results”), wherein the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) comprises a pneumatic actuator (see drive apparatus 233 & opening apparatus 239) for moving the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) with respect to the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100) ([0145] “pneumatically supplying an associated manipulating apparatus or for actuating said manipulating apparatus”; [0155] “pneumatically”; [0157] “analyzer 200 can preferably be pneumatically connected to the cartridge 100, in particular in order to actuate individual apparatuses, and/or can be electrically connected to the cartridge 100, in particular in order to collect and/or transmit measured values, for example from the sensor apparatus 113 and/or sensor portions 116”; [0231] “The analyzer 200, in particular the clamping system 280, is preferably designed to receive, position/align, hold and/or clamp the cartridge 100, in particular such that the cartridge 100 is positioned/aligned and/or firmly held within the analyzer 200, in particular the clamping system 280, mostly preferred in a pre-defined and/or repeatable manner, and/or can be mechanically, electrically, thermally, fluidically and/or pneumatically connected, mostly preferred to the pump drive 202, the connection apparatus 203”), wherein the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) comprises a base (fig. 11, housing 212) affixed to the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) and configured to support the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) at a predetermined location with respect to the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100), wherein the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) comprises a proximal member (proximal portion of clamping system 280) and a distal member (distal portion of clamping system 280), wherein the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) comprises an adjuster (adjusting portion of drive apparatus 233 & opening apparatus 239 with misalignment compensation means) configured to adjust at least one of the horizontal or vertical positioning (see arrows; see also preceding citations pertaining to misalignment compensation) of the distal member (distal portion of clamping system 280) of the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) with respect to the proximal member of the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) ([0016]-[0017]), and an associated method of deploying the apparatus of claim 1, comprising:
moving the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100) to a predefined measurement location with respect to the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280);
moving the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) into a predetermined configuration with respect to the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100); and
measuring the property of the environment within the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100), wherein moving the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) comprises compressing the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) when the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) is in contact with the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100), further comprising attaching a pneumatic line to a pneumatic actuator (see drive apparatus 233 & opening apparatus 239) of the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) and transmitting a control signal configured to cause the pneumatic actuator (see drive apparatus 233 & opening apparatus 239) to move a predefined distance ([0145] “pneumatically supplying an associated manipulating apparatus or for actuating said manipulating apparatus”; [0155] “pneumatically”; [0157] “analyzer 200 can preferably be pneumatically connected to the cartridge 100, in particular in order to actuate individual apparatuses, and/or can be electrically connected to the cartridge 100, in particular in order to collect and/or transmit measured values, for example from the sensor apparatus 113 and/or sensor portions 116”; [0231] “The analyzer 200, in particular the clamping system 280, is preferably designed to receive, position/align, hold and/or clamp the cartridge 100, in particular such that the cartridge 100 is positioned/aligned and/or firmly held within the analyzer 200, in particular the clamping system 280, mostly preferred in a pre-defined and/or repeatable manner, and/or can be mechanically, electrically, thermally, fluidically and/or pneumatically connected, mostly preferred to the pump drive 202, the connection apparatus 203”), further comprising fixing a base (fig. 11, housing 212) to the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283), the base (fig. 11, housing 212) configured to support the float mechanism (fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) at a predetermined location with respect to the cassette (fig. 11, cartridge 100), wherein the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) comprises a proximal member (proximal portion of clamping system 280) and a distal member (distal portion of clamping system 280), further comprising adjusting an adjuster (adjusting portion of drive apparatus 233 & opening apparatus 239 with misalignment compensation means) to change at least one of the horizontal or vertical positioning (see arrows) of the distal member (distal portion of clamping system 280) of the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280) with respect to the proximal member of the movement system (fig. 11, clamping system 280).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Niemeyer pneumatically controlled mechanisms & associated method for movement which float, cushion, & vertically/horizontally compensate for misalignment with Teich’s sensor elevator for the expected benefits of high speed durable actuation which can compensate for misalignments and cushion/dampen impacts/vibrations and thus make Teich’s apparatus & associated method more reliable.
Therefore Teich as modified by Niemeyer suggests a float mechanism (Niemeyer’s float mechanism comprising cushioning) configured to reduce or eliminate a sustained or impact force of the sensor probe (Teich sensor probe 170) on the lid (Teich frame 200) of the cassette (Teich cartridge 110).
Regarding Method claim 11, which depends on Apparatus claim 1,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim) by Niemeyer suggests a method of deploying the apparatus of claim 1, comprising:
moving the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110) to a predefined measurement location with respect to the sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145);
moving the sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145) to place the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) into a predetermined configuration with respect to the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110); and
measuring the property of the environment within the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110) using the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Teich teaches wherein the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) comprises one or more of an oxygen sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170), a temperature sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170), or a carbon dioxide sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) ([0043] “Various types of sensors can be utilized depending on the analysis to be performed and its selected configuration, including oxygen sensors, such as oxygen-quenched fluorescent sensors, pH sensors, including fluorescent sensors, ISFET and impedance sensors using electrodes coupled through bottom wall 325 of sleeve 240, CO.sub.2 sensors, including bicarbonate buffer coupled and ammonium dye coupled fluorescent sensors as well as other CO.sub.2 sensors”).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 11,
Teich teaches wherein measuring the property of the environment within the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110) comprises measuring an oxygen concentration, a temperature, or a carbon dioxide concentration ([0043] “Various types of sensors can be utilized depending on the analysis to be performed and its selected configuration, including oxygen sensors, such as oxygen-quenched fluorescent sensors, pH sensors, including fluorescent sensors, ISFET and impedance sensors using electrodes coupled through bottom wall 325 of sleeve 240, CO.sub.2 sensors, including bicarbonate buffer coupled and ammonium dye coupled fluorescent sensors as well as other CO.sub.2 sensors”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1,
Teich teaches wherein the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) performs one or more of emitting light or receiving a fluorescence signal ([0043] “fluorescent sensors”; [0044] “Preferred sensors are fluorophores. Many fluorescent sensing” and “modulates the fluorescence of the probe” and “fluorescent oxygen sensor” and “fluorescent ammonia transducer”).
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 11,
Teich teaches further comprising transmitting a control signal (via controller 175 with computer 180; at once so envisaged, additional obviousness analysis provided) ([0013] “controller to control”; [0035] “controlled by a controller 175, that may be integrated with a computer 180”; [0069] “instrument operating system software”; [0017] “system in communication with the controller and the probes”) configured to cause the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) to perform one or more of emitting light or receiving a fluorescence signal ([0043] “fluorescent sensors”; [0044] “Preferred sensors are fluorophores. Many fluorescent sensing” and “modulates the fluorescence of the probe” and “fluorescent oxygen sensor” and “fluorescent ammonia transducer”).
With further respect to the control signal, the Examiner previously took Official Notice that controlling a control signal with a controller is conventional. As the Applicant had not adequately traversed this assertion, this is considered admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP § 2144.03(C). Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the control signal is transmitted by Teich’s controller, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Teich’s controller for controlling including control signals as is conventional in the art for the expected benefits of controlled automation.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim) by Niemeyer suggests wherein the float mechanism (Niemeyer: fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232) comprises a linear slide and one or more springs (Niemeyer: fig. 11, springs 284B & 285B) (Niemeyer: [0238] “The intermediate unit 230, the connection unit 231, the clamping unit 232 and/or the lifting apparatus 238 are preferably movable/slidable relative to one another and/or back and forth, in particular in order to hold the cartridge 100 in a clamped manner for the test and/or in a test position and/or to release/eject the cartridge 100 after the test has been completed”; [0248] “slidable”; [0434] “at least one coupling spring” and “a coil and/or helical spring”). The Examiner emphasizes that Niemeyer’s linear actuation and springs are beneficial for proper compression of the float mechanism when positioning without exerting excessive force on a cassette due to excessive actuation or misalignment.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim) by Niemeyer suggests wherein the float mechanism (Niemeyer: fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) comprises foam cushioning (Niemeyer: [0609] “analyzer 200 comprises a cushion 283 for holding the rack 237 and/or the connection unit 231 within the housing 212, preferably wherein the cushion 283 is flexible and/or made of foam”; [0048] “the cushion preferably serves as a damper and/or absorbs forces/vibrations. Both, inner forces/vibration, e.g., causes by the moving parts of the analyzer, and outer forces/vibration, e.g., caused by a hit/stroke on the housing, are minimized and/or at least partially absorbed by means of the cushion. In this way, damages of the analyzer or (negative) impacts on the test are prevented or at least minimized, e.g., when the analyzer is subjected to an impact”; [0049] “the cushion acts as a buffer and/or a crumble/deformable zone between the housing and the inner parts of the analyzer, in particular the rack, the connection unit, the clamping unit, the guide apparatus and/or the cartridge”; [0201] “cushion 283 is preferably adapted to hold, support, bear, align and/or position some or all parts of the analyze”; [0227] “Mostly preferred, the cushion 283 is made of foam, in particular a foamed/expanded material, e.g., expanded polypropylene, expanded polyethylene, expanded polystyrene or the like”; [0228] “the cushion 283 preferably serves as a damper and/or absorbs vibration/shocks. In this way, the analyzer 200 is protected against external impacts that might influence the test and/or its results”). The Examiner emphasizes that Niemeyer’s cushion dampens unwanted vibration/shocks from both internal and external impacts that might otherwise influence analysis and/or damage components.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim) by Niemeyer suggests wherein the sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145) comprises a pneumatic actuator (Niemeyer’s pneumatic actuation) for moving the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) toward the surface of the lid (fig. 2, frame 200) of the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110) (Niemeyer: [0145] “pneumatically supplying an associated manipulating apparatus or for actuating said manipulating apparatus”; [0155] “pneumatically”; [0157] “analyzer 200 can preferably be pneumatically connected to the cartridge 100, in particular in order to actuate individual apparatuses, and/or can be electrically connected to the cartridge 100, in particular in order to collect and/or transmit measured values, for example from the sensor apparatus 113 and/or sensor portions 116”; [0231] “The analyzer 200, in particular the clamping system 280, is preferably designed to receive, position/align, hold and/or clamp the cartridge 100, in particular such that the cartridge 100 is positioned/aligned and/or firmly held within the analyzer 200, in particular the clamping system 280, mostly preferred in a pre-defined and/or repeatable manner, and/or can be mechanically, electrically, thermally, fluidically and/or pneumatically connected, mostly preferred to the pump drive 202, the connection apparatus 203”). The Examiner emphasizes that Niemeyer’s pneumatic actuation is fast, reliable, cheap, and/or durable.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 11,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim) by Niemeyer suggests further comprising attaching a pneumatic line to a pneumatic actuator (Niemeyer: see drive apparatus 233 & opening apparatus 239) of the sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145), and transmitting a control signal configured to cause the pneumatic actuator (Niemeyer: see drive apparatus 233 & opening apparatus 239) to move a predefined distance (Niemeyer: [0145] “pneumatically supplying an associated manipulating apparatus or for actuating said manipulating apparatus”; [0155] “pneumatically”; [0157] “analyzer 200 can preferably be pneumatically connected to the cartridge 100, in particular in order to actuate individual apparatuses, and/or can be electrically connected to the cartridge 100, in particular in order to collect and/or transmit measured values, for example from the sensor apparatus 113 and/or sensor portions 116”; [0231] “The analyzer 200, in particular the clamping system 280, is preferably designed to receive, position/align, hold and/or clamp the cartridge 100, in particular such that the cartridge 100 is positioned/aligned and/or firmly held within the analyzer 200, in particular the clamping system 280, mostly preferred in a pre-defined and/or repeatable manner, and/or can be mechanically, electrically, thermally, fluidically and/or pneumatically connected, mostly preferred to the pump drive 202, the connection apparatus 203”). The Examiner emphasizes that Niemeyer’s pneumatic actuation is fast, reliable, cheap, and/or durable. With further respect to the control signal, the Examiner takes Official Notice that controlling a control signal with a controller is conventional, and either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that in the combination the control signal is transmitted by Teich’s controller, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Teich’s controller for controlling including control signals as is conventional in the art for the expected benefits of controlled automation.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim) by Niemeyer suggests wherein the sensor elevator assembly (assembly comprising elevator mechanism 145) comprises a base (fig. 1, stage 130) affixed to the float mechanism (Niemeyer: fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) and configured to support the float mechanism (Niemeyer: fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) at a predetermined location with respect to the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110).
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 11,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim) by Niemeyer suggests further comprising fixing a base (fig. 1, stage 130) to the float mechanism (Niemeyer: fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283), the base (fig. 1, stage 130) configured to support the float mechanism (Niemeyer: fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) at a predetermined location with respect to the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1,
Teich teaches wherein the sensor elevator assembly (assembly comprising elevator mechanism 145) comprises a probe support (fig. 1, mounting block 140 with multiplexer 150) to which the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) is affixed, the probe support (fig. 1, mounting block 140 with multiplexer 150) comprising a proximal member and a distal member ([0045] “sensor probe 170 is attached to and extends orthogonally from the pneumatic multiplexer 150”).
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 11,
Teich teaches further comprising affixing the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) to the sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145).
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 17,
Teich teaches wherein the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) is fixed to a probe support (fig. 1, mounting block 140 with multiplexer 150) that comprises a proximal member and a distal member ([0045] “sensor probe 170 is attached to and extends orthogonally from the pneumatic multiplexer 150”).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of preceding claims) by Niemeyer suggests wherein the sensor elevator assembly (assembly comprising elevator mechanism 145) comprises an adjuster (Niemeyer: adjusting portion of drive apparatus 233 & opening apparatus 239 with misalignment compensation means) configured to adjust at least one of the horizontal or vertical positioning of the distal member of the probe support (fig. 1, mounting block 140 with multiplexer 150) with respect to the proximal member of the probe support (fig. 1, mounting block 140 with multiplexer 150). The Examiner emphasizes that Niemeyer’s means for adjustment including misalignment better enables Teich to compensate for misalignments and/or changes in size of the cassette thus make Teich’s apparatus and associated method more reliable and versatile.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 18,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim) by Niemeyer suggests further comprising adjusting an adjuster (Niemeyer: adjusting portion of drive apparatus 233 & opening apparatus 239 with misalignment compensation means) to change at least one of the horizontal or vertical positioning of the distal member of the probe support (fig. 1, mounting block 140 with multiplexer 150) with respect to the proximal member of the probe support (fig. 1, mounting block 140 with multiplexer 150).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 11,
Teich as previously modified (see analysis of independent claim) by Niemeyer suggests wherein moving the sensor elevator assembly (fig. 1, elevator mechanism 145) comprises moving the sensor probe (fig. 1, sensor probe 170) into contact with the cassette (figs. 1 & 2, cartridge 110) so that the float mechanism (Niemeyer: fig. 11, clamping/actuator unit 232 with cushion 283) compresses.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10 & 19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
When this application is finally acted upon and allowed (i.e., the Notice of Allowance), the Examiner will determine, at the same time, whether the reasons why the application is being allowed are sufficiently evident from the record; see MPEP § 1302.14(I).
Conclusion
The prior art previously made of record and not relied upon is still considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
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 DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is (303) 297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 24SEP2026
Prosecution Insights