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 .
Applicant’s filing of claims 1-9 on 3/4/24 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are pending and are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/4/24 was acknowledged. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The Office asserts that terms and phrases like “configured to” and “wherein” constitute recitations of intended use language for purposes of examination. The Office asserts that in the examined claims reciting such “configured to” language, the claim language that follows such recitations does not necessarily denote structure MPEP 2173.05(g). The functional limitation was evaluated and considered, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Similarly, a “wherein” clause may have a limiting effect on a claim if the language limits the claim to a particular structure. MPEP 2111.04. The determination of whether a “wherein” clause is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. While all words in each claim are considered in judging the patentability of the claim language, including functional claim limitations, not all limitations provide a patentable distinction.
During patent examination, the examined claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, unless a term has been given a special definition in the specification (“BRI”). See MPEP 2111.
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 2-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected because it is unclear how the claimed functions of the processing device structurally further define the claimed dispensing apparatus.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibahara et al. (“Shibahara,” WO 2019/150757 A1) in view of Yoshino et al. (“Yoshino,” JP 2003-225601 A).
As to claims 1 and 9, Shibahara discloses a dispensing apparatus configured to dispense a liquid, the apparatus comprising: a piston (108); a first drive device (motor 102) that drives the piston; a pipette that has a tip mounting unit (piston receiving portion 109) to which a dispensing tip (disposable tip 110) is attached and receives the piston; a block (tip detaching part 111 has a through hole) that has a hole to which the tip mounting unit is able to be fitted; and a second drive device (motor 112) that varies a relative position between the syringe and the block, wherein a processing device (control PC 901) drives the second drive device to fit the tip mounting unit and the hole to each other and seal up an interior of the syringe, applies positive pressure or negative pressure into the syringe, and calculates a correction value for a dispensing command value associated with a drive amount of the first drive device based on the pressure in the syringe after the positive pressure or the negative pressure is applied. See claim interpretation above. The control PC is capable of performing the claimed functions, e.g., calculates a correction value.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Shibahara does not specifically disclose a syringe and a pressure sensor, and a processing device that processes a detection signal of the pressure measured by the pressure sensor. Yoshino discloses a syringe in the abstract, a pressure gauge 45 in fig. 4, and a pressure circuit in fig. 4. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the syringe, pressure sensor and processing device associated with pressure sensor because it would help improve the dispensing accuracy of the apparatus. See also MPEP 2112.02 for claim 9.
As to claim 2, Shibahara in combination with Yoshino disclose the processing device calculates the correction value by using a dispensing command value map indicating a relationship between the pressure and the dispensing command value for obtaining a desired dispensing amount. Shibahara’s control PC and Yoshino’s control circuit are capable of performing the claimed functions, e.g., calculates a correction value. See claim interpretation above.
As to claim 3, Shibahara in combination with Yoshino disclose the processing device determines whether the dispensing apparatus is usable based on the pressure after the positive pressure or the negative pressure is applied, calculates the correction value when the dispensing apparatus is usable, and outputs an error to an output device when the dispensing apparatus is not usable. Shibahara’s control PC and Yoshino’s control circuit are capable of performing the claimed functions, e.g., calculates a correction value. See claim interpretation above.
As to claim 4, Shibahara in combination with Yoshino disclose the processing device determines that the dispensing apparatus is not usable, when pressure after a predetermined time has elapsed from the application of the positive pressure or the negative pressure has a value closer to atmospheric pressure than a predetermined threshold value. Shibahara’s control PC and Yoshino’s control circuit are capable of performing the claimed functions. See claim interpretation above.
As to claim 5, Shibahara in combination with Yoshino disclose the processing device applies the positive pressure or the negative pressure into the syringe by driving the first drive device to drive the piston. Shibahara’s control PC and Yoshino’s control circuit are capable of performing the claimed functions. See claim interpretation above.
As to claim 6, Shibahara in combination with Yoshino disclose one end portion of the hole is opened, and another end portion is closed. See figs. 1-5 of Shibahara.
As to claim 7, Shibahara in combination with Yoshino disclose the block is a piercing tip holding portion that holds a piercing tip with a closed bottom portion, and the hole is the piercing tip. See figs. 1-5 et seq. of Shibahara.
As to claim 8, Shibahara in combination with Yoshino disclose a pump that is connected to the hole, wherein the processing device applies the positive pressure or the negative pressure into the syringe by driving the pump. See piston 108 and piston receiving portion 109 of Shibahara.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254.
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.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights