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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “the storage device of claim 1 comprising:...” and should be amended to recite “the storage device of claim 1 further comprising:...”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-24 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 1-2, 14, 20, and 22 recite the term nest(s), however, the claims merely provide for a singular nest. Thereby, it is unclear if the claim refers to a single nest or plural nests as implied by the parenthetical (s) of nest(s). Applicant is suggested to amend the claims to recite “nest” when a singular nest is referred to and has antecedent basis therefor, and “nests” when plural nests are referred to and have antecedent basis therefor.
Claim 20 recites “using the tube rack handler to transfer tube racks between the tube picker and the storage locations” wherein the method steps corresponding to the claimed “using” are indefinitely provided for. As such, the means for achieving the claimed result of tube transfer is indefinitely defined. What is/are the sought, positive process step(s) that afford such transfer?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 4-5, 7-12, 15-16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cosmas (EP 3006867 B1), hereinafter “Cosmas”.
Regarding Claim 1, Cosmas teaches a storage device for tube racks (See Abstract, para. [0023], and Figs. 1-3; see also [0050] regarding the claimed “tube racks” being the “an object” in Cosmas which holds containers itself.) comprising;
a tube rack handler 3 ([0023]: “A transport device 3 in a lock chamber 4 is used for automatically moving objects between storage chamber 1 and transfer chamber 2.”),
a carousel 12 having a vertical rotation axis and being rotatable in respect to the tube rack handler 3 (See Figs. 2 and 3 showing the carousel 12, and para. [0025]: “Inner space 11 receives a storage carousel 12 rotatable about a vertical carousel axis 13 (the "third axis" in the context of the claims).”),
a plurality of tube rack storage locations 21 arranged on the carousel 12 ([0030]: “Carousel 12 forms a plurality of carousel storage locations 21 (Fig. 2), each for receiving one of the objects to be stored. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the carousel storage locations 21 are formed by a plurality of storage cassettes 22 arranged side by side along the periphery of carousel 12. Each storage cassette 22 contains a plurality of the storage locations 21 arranged above each other.”),
a tube picker 60 ([0050]: “Item picker 60 serves to remove individual items from an object or to insert an individual item into an object.”) having
a) a tube rack nest 55b (See paras. [0051-0054]: “Item picker 60 comprises an item picker location 55b...”)
b) a tube gripper 62 structured to engage an individual tube in a tube rack located in the nest ([0052]: “a picker device 62, which is adapted for removing an individual item from the plurality of items in the object at picker location 55b and/or for adding an individual item to the plurality of items in the object at picker location 55b” – See also paras. [0038, 0053] discussing a gripper embodiment.),
wherein the storage locations 21 and the nest(s) are both accessible by the tube rack handler 3 ([0036]: “Transport device 3 is, as mentioned, arranged within second section 32 of lock chamber 4. Its design can best be seen in Figs. 4 - 8. Its purpose is to move objects between storage chamber 1 and transfer chamber 2.”),
as in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above wherein the tube picker comprises at least two nests (See Fig. 9 showing plural nests 55a, and [0049]: “Advantageously, transfer location 50 forms a plurality of locations 55a - 55d adapted to receive objects, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Each object storage location 55a - 55d is adapted to receive one object.”.), as in Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above wherein the tube picker comprises at least a first, a second, and a third nest (See Fig. 9 showing plural nests 55a, and [0049]: “Advantageously, transfer location 50 forms a plurality of locations 55a - 55d adapted to receive objects, as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. Each object storage location 55a - 55d is adapted to receive one object.”.), and wherein the tube picker is adapted to move tubes between different tube racks in the first and third nests and to move tubes between different tube racks in the second and third nests ([0055]: “Item picker 60 is arranged vertically above (or below) the storage locations 55a. Carriage 38 of transport device 3 can be vertically displaced and pivoted for being aligned with picker location 55b or one of the storage locations 55a.”), as in Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 4 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above wherein the nests are horizontally arranged side by side ([0050]: “The transfer stores 56 are arranged side by side at different angular locations in respect to pivot axis 41 of carriage 38 (when lock chamber 3 is in the position where its opening 29 faces transfer location 50 as shown in Fig. 4). Hence, each transfer store 56 can be reached by manipulator 45 by pivoting carriage 38 into two different second pivotal position 51b, 51c (cf. Fig. 4).”), as in Claim 7.
Further as in Claim 7, the recitation “rotated in respect to each other about said rotation axis” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Herein, the nests of Cosmas are fully capable of being rotated about the rotation axis, given an applied force.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above wherein the tube picker comprises a first linear guide 42 extending parallel to the rotation axis and wherein the tube gripper is mounted to the first linear guide 42 (See Figs. 7 and 8, and [0038]: “As can be seen from Fig. 8, transport device 3 comprises a pivotal and vertically displaceable carriage 38. Carriage 38 is mounted to a carrier 39, with a pivoting motor 40 provided for pivoting carriage 38 in respect to carrier 39 about a vertical pivot axis 41 (the "second axis" in the context of the claims). Carrier 39 is, in its turn, mounted to a vertical guide rail 42 arranged within lock chamber 4. A vertical drive motor 43 is arranged on carriage 38 in order to vertically displace carriage 38 along vertical guide rail 42.”), as in Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above wherein the tube picker comprises a second linear guide extending perpendicularly to the rotation axis and wherein the tube gripper is mounted to the second linear guide ([0056]: “a horizontal guide rail 73 between the object locations 71a, 71b” Further note that the gripper is mounted to the horizontal rail by way of the inner mounting wall similarly as above.), as in Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above further comprising:
a plurality of storage locations located in said carousel vertically above each other along the rotation axis (See Fig. 2 showing the vertically stacked storage locations 21.), and
a guide rail 42, extending parallel to the rotation axis, wherein the tube rack handler is vertically displaceable along the guide rail 42 (See Figs. 7 and 8, and [0038]: “As can be seen from Fig. 8, transport device 3 comprises a pivotal and vertically displaceable carriage 38. Carriage 38 is mounted to a carrier 39, with a pivoting motor 40 provided for pivoting carriage 38 in respect to carrier 39 about a vertical pivot axis 41 (the "second axis" in the context of the claims). Carrier 39 is, in its turn, mounted to a vertical guide rail 42 arranged within lock chamber 4. A vertical drive motor 43 is arranged on carriage 38 in order to vertically displace carriage 38 along vertical guide rail 42.”),
as in Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above wherein the tube picker is arranged vertically above the storage locations (See Fig. 2 showing the picker being actuatable to be vertically disposed over the storage locations so as to be able to reach each of the storage locations even at the topmost portion of the carousel.), as in Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above wherein the tube picker is arranged vertically below the storage locations (See Fig. 2 showing the picker being actuatable to be vertically disposed under the storage locations so as to be able to reach each of the storage locations even at the bottom-most portion of the carousel.), as in Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above wherein the tube picker comprises a pusher mounted via a third linear guide to the tube gripper, wherein the third linear guide extends parallel to the rotation axis and wherein the pusher is movable, along the third linear guide, from a position below the nest to a position where it extends into the nest (See paras. [0039-0040]: “Carriage 38 carries a manipulator 45, whose purpose is to hold the objects to be manipulated. In the shown embodiment, manipulator 45 is formed by a shovel-like table, which can be extended below an object to be picked up and then lifted to engage the object. Other manipulator designs, such as grippers or clamps, are known to the skilled person. Manipulator 45 has a retracted and an extended position, and it can be extended, in respect to carriage 38, in horizontal direction from its retracted to its extended position in order to pick up or deposit an object. This displacement is achieved by means of a horizontal displacement motor 47.”), as in Claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above further comprising a transfer station 74 for transferring a tube rack between an external system and the storage device, wherein the tube rack handler is adapted to access a tube rack on the transfer station 74 ([0058]: “Second object location 71b is located at an opening 74 of an exterior housing 80 of the present storage device (see Fig. 2 for opening 74, Fig. 1 for exterior housing 80). From second object location 71b, the object can be accessed by an external robotic system or by a user.”), as in Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18, Cosmas teaches a storage cabinet comprising the storage device of Claim 1 (See Claim 1 above, and further see Fig. 1 showing the elements of Claim 1 contained in a cabinet housing 80.) and further comprising:
a chamber (See Fig. 2 showing the chamber(s) within the housing 80 as formed by the housing 80.); and
a climate controller 6 adapted to control a temperature and/or atmospheric composition parameters within the chamber ([0024]: “A refrigerator device 5 is provided for cooling storage chamber 1 and transfer chamber 2. A control unit 6 controls the various components of the storage device.” – See also paras. [0065-0073].),
wherein the storage device is arranged in the chamber (See Fig. 1 showing the exterior housing 80 as forming the chamber housing the elements of the storage device of Claim 1 seen in Fig. 2.),
as in Claim 18.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 18 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage cabinet discussed above further comprising a transfer station (lock chamber) for transferring a tube rack between an external system and the storage device ([0009]: “A transfer location arranged outside said storage chamber. This is a designated location for intermediately receiving objects that leave the storage chamber or that are to be moved into the storage chamber. A lock chamber arranged in said insulating wall, wherein said lock chamber comprises a cylindrical housing and an opening arranged in said cylindrical housing, and wherein said lock chamber is rotatable about a first axis for selectively orienting said opening towards said storage chamber or said transfer location. The objects can pass this lock chamber on their way between the storage chamber and the transfer location. The lock chamber prevents a free gas exchange between the storage chamber and its surroundings.”), wherein the tube rack handler is adapted to access a tube rack on the transfer station and wherein the transfer station is located outside the storage cabinet ([0009]: “An automatic transport device arranged in said lock chamber...”), as in Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Cosmas teaches a method for operating a storage device that includes a tube rack handler 3 ([0023]: “A transport device 3 in a lock chamber 4 is used for automatically moving objects between storage chamber 1 and transfer chamber 2.”),
a carousel 12 having a vertical rotation axis and being rotatable in respect to the tube rack handler 3 (See Figs. 2 and 3 showing the carousel 12, and para. [0025]: “Inner space 11 receives a storage carousel 12 rotatable about a vertical carousel axis 13 (the "third axis" in the context of the claims).”),
a plurality of tube rack storage locations 21 arranged on the carousel 12 ([0030]: “Carousel 12 forms a plurality of carousel storage locations 21 (Fig. 2), each for receiving one of the objects to be stored. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the carousel storage locations 21 are formed by a plurality of storage cassettes 22 arranged side by side along the periphery of carousel 12. Each storage cassette 22 contains a plurality of the storage locations 21 arranged above each other.”),
a tube picker ([0050]: “Item picker 60 serves to remove individual items from an object or to insert an individual item into an object.”) having
a) a tube rack nest 50 (See paras. [0048-0051]: “transfer chamber 2 holds a transfer location 50, where objects to be accessed by transport device 3 are located...”)
b) a tube gripper 62 structured to engage an individual tube in a tube rack located in the nest ([0052]: “a picker device 62, which is adapted for removing an individual item from the plurality of items in the object...” – See also paras. [0038, 0053] discussing a gripper embodiment.),
wherein the storage locations 21 and the nest(s) are both accessible by the tube rack handler 3 ([0036]: “Transport device 3 is, as mentioned, arranged within second section 32 of lock chamber 4. Its design can best be seen in Figs. 4 - 8. Its purpose is to move objects between storage chamber 1 and transfer chamber 2.” - [0051]: “the present device further comprises an item picker 60 at transfer location 50.”), the method comprising:
using the tube rack handler to transfer tube racks between the tube picker and the storage locations (See paras. [0014-0016].), as in Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 21, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 20 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the method discussed above further comprising:
using the tube rack handler to transfer tube racks between the tube picker and an external system (lock chamber) ([0009]: “A transfer location arranged outside said storage chamber. This is a designated location for intermediately receiving objects that leave the storage chamber or that are to be moved into the storage chamber. A lock chamber arranged in said insulating wall, wherein said lock chamber comprises a cylindrical housing and an opening arranged in said cylindrical housing, and wherein said lock chamber is rotatable about a first axis for selectively orienting said opening towards said storage chamber or said transfer location. The objects can pass this lock chamber on their way between the storage chamber and the transfer location. The lock chamber prevents a free gas exchange between the storage chamber and its surroundings.”), wherein the tube rack handler is adapted to access a tube rack on the transfer station and wherein the transfer station is located outside the storage cabinet ([0009]: “An automatic transport device arranged in said lock chamber...”), as in Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 22, Cosmas teaches a method for operating a storage device that includes a tube rack handler 3 ([0023]: “A transport device 3 in a lock chamber 4 is used for automatically moving objects between storage chamber 1 and transfer chamber 2.”),
a carousel 12 having a vertical rotation axis and being rotatable in respect to the tube rack handler 3 (See Figs. 2 and 3 showing the carousel 12, and para. [0025]: “Inner space 11 receives a storage carousel 12 rotatable about a vertical carousel axis 13 (the "third axis" in the context of the claims).”),
a plurality of tube rack storage locations 21 arranged on the carousel 12 ([0030]: “Carousel 12 forms a plurality of carousel storage locations 21 (Fig. 2), each for receiving one of the objects to be stored. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the carousel storage locations 21 are formed by a plurality of storage cassettes 22 arranged side by side along the periphery of carousel 12. Each storage cassette 22 contains a plurality of the storage locations 21 arranged above each other.”),
a tube picker ([0050]: “Item picker 60 serves to remove individual items from an object or to insert an individual item into an object.”) having
a) a tube rack nest 50 (See paras. [0048-0051]: “transfer chamber 2 holds a transfer location 50, where objects to be accessed by transport device 3 are located...”)
b) a tube gripper 62 structured to engage an individual tube in a tube rack located in the nest ([0052]: “a picker device 62, which is adapted for removing an individual item from the plurality of items in the object...” – See also paras. [0038, 0053] discussing a gripper embodiment.),
wherein the storage locations 21 and the nest(s) are both accessible by the tube rack handler 3 ([0036]: “Transport device 3 is, as mentioned, arranged within second section 32 of lock chamber 4. Its design can best be seen in Figs. 4 - 8. Its purpose is to move objects between storage chamber 1 and transfer chamber 2.” - [0051]: “the present device further comprises an item picker 60 at transfer location 50.”), the method comprising:
using the tube rack handler to transfer tube racks between the tube picker and the storage locations ([0014-0016]),
placing a tube rack having a tube location to be engaged in the nest ([0013-0017], [0050]: “...each transfer store 56 can be reached by manipulator 45 by pivoting carriage 38 into two different second pivotal position 51b, 51c (cf. Fig. 4).”), and
rotating the carousel to position the tube gripper at a location above the tube location ([0016]: “Advantageously, the transfer storage locations are arranged above or below said item picker in order to provide a compact arrangement of parts in the transfer location.” Further, Cosmas teaches rotating of the carousel which may be performed simultaneously to position the tube gripper.),
as in Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 23, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 20 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the method discussed above further comprising: moving a first tube rack from the storage locations to a first nest, moving a second tube rack from the external system to a third nest, and moving a third tube rack between a second nest and the storage locations while the first and second tube racks are in the first and third nests (See paras. [0048-0060] discussing the transfer locations (nests), wherein the transfer store 50 comprises multiple nests for moving first/second/third samples therebetween the storage locations of the carousel, wherein the device comprises such plural nests such that plural (such as first and second) tube racks may be placed in a nest while others (such as a third tube rack) are manipulated.), as in Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 24, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 19 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage cabinet discussed above further comprising a machine-controller door, wherein the tube rack handler is adapted to access the tube rack on the transfer station through the machine-controlled door (See Fig. 4 and [0033] showing the open/closed positions of the lock chamber. See further paras. [0022-0023] discussing automation of the system, wherein the positions of the lock must necessarily be machine-controlled so as to achieve the automation sought by Cosmas.), as in Claim 24.
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 2-3, 6, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosmas. Cosmas has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 2, Cosmas teaches a storage device for tube racks (See Abstract, para. [0023], and Figs. 1-3; see also [0050] regarding the claimed “tube racks” being the “an object” in Cosmas which holds containers itself.) comprising;
a tube rack handler 3 ([0023]: “A transport device 3 in a lock chamber 4 is used for automatically moving objects between storage chamber 1 and transfer chamber 2.”),
a carousel 12 having a vertical rotation axis and being rotatable in respect to the tube rack handler 3 (See Figs. 2 and 3 showing the carousel 12, and para. [0025]: “Inner space 11 receives a storage carousel 12 rotatable about a vertical carousel axis 13 (the "third axis" in the context of the claims).”),
a plurality of tube rack storage locations 21 arranged on the carousel 12 ([0030]: “Carousel 12 forms a plurality of carousel storage locations 21 (Fig. 2), each for receiving one of the objects to be stored. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the carousel storage locations 21 are formed by a plurality of storage cassettes 22 arranged side by side along the periphery of carousel 12. Each storage cassette 22 contains a plurality of the storage locations 21 arranged above each other.”),
a tube picker ([0050]: “Item picker 60 serves to remove individual items from an object or to insert an individual item into an object.”) having
a) a tube rack nest 50 (See paras. [0048-0051]: “transfer chamber 2 holds a transfer location 50, where objects to be accessed by transport device 3 are located...”)
b) a tube gripper 62 structured to engage an individual tube in a tube rack located in the nest ([0052]: “a picker device 62, which is adapted for removing an individual item from the plurality of items in the object...” – See also paras. [0038, 0053] discussing a gripper embodiment.),
wherein the storage locations 21 and the nest(s) are both accessible by the tube rack handler 3 ([0036]: “Transport device 3 is, as mentioned, arranged within second section 32 of lock chamber 4. Its design can best be seen in Figs. 4 - 8. Its purpose is to move objects between storage chamber 1 and transfer chamber 2.” - [0051]: “the present device further comprises an item picker 60 at transfer location 50.”), and
wherein the nest is mounted to the carousel (Similarly as above, the nest is mounted to the carousel 12 vis the frame 14 and the interior wall.),
as in Claim 2.
Further as in Claim 2, Cosmas does not specifically teach the storage device discussed above wherein the nest is rotatable, in respect to the tube gripper, by rotating the carousel, as in Claim 2.
However, mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Herein, the tube transfer station 50 (nest(s)) serves the identical function of acting as a location for holding tube racks accessible to the picker, being outside the main storage carousel, regardless of its location with respect to the carousel or rotatability with respect to the gripper, and is thereby a mere matter of design choice, absent evidence of a criticality or unexpected result thereto the location and mounting of the nest.
Further, the recitation “rotating the carousel” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Given an applied force of sufficient strength, the transfer station 50 is fully capable of being rotated respective to the gripper.
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above further comprising a retainer assembly forming a retainer arranged above the nest (See Fig. 9 showing a retainer plate arranged above the nest.), wherein the retainer assembly is vertically displaceable in respect to the nest (Given an applied force of sufficient strength, the retainer plate is fully capable of being vertically displaced with respect to the nest.) wherein the retainer assembly is mounted to the carousel (Similarly as above, the retainer assembly is mounted to the carousel 12 vis the frame 14 and the interior wall.), as in Claim 3.
Further as in Claim 3, Cosmas does not specifically teach the storage device discussed above wherein the retainer assembly is rotatable, in respect to the tube gripper, by rotating the carousel, as in Claim 3.
Further, the recitation “rotating the carousel” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Given an applied force of sufficient strength, the transfer station 50 is fully capable of being rotated respective to the gripper.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 5 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above wherein the nest is mounted to the carousel (Similarly as above, the nest is mounted to the carousel 12 vis the frame 14 and the interior wall.),
wherein the storage device comprises a retainer assembly forming a retainer arranged above the nest (See Fig. 9 showing a retainer plate arranged above the nest.)
wherein the retainer assembly is vertically displaceable in respect to the nest (Given an applied force of sufficient strength, the retainer plate is fully capable of being vertically displaced with respect to the nest.),
wherein the retainer assembly is mounted to the carousel (Similarly as above, the retainer assembly is mounted to the carousel 12 vis the frame 14 and the interior wall.),
as in Claim 6.
Further as in Claim 6, Cosmas does not specifically teach the storage device discussed above wherein the retainer assembly forms a first retainer arranged above the first nest and a second retainer arranged above the second nest, as in Claim 6.
However, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Further, merely making as separate pieces what exists in the prior art as one integral piece absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04 (V)(B). Thus, given Cosmas discusses nests as being arranged side-by-side as in paras. [0048-0050] one of ordinary skill in the art would find it a mere matter of design choice to provide an additional retainer, or to split the one retainer into two, so as to respectively cover and correspond to each of the respective nests.
Further as in Claim 6, Cosmas does not specifically teach the storage device discussed above wherein the nest or retainer is rotatable, in respect to the tube gripper, by rotating the carousel, as in Claim 6.
However, mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Herein, the tube transfer station 50 (nest(s)) serves the identical function of acting as a location for holding tube racks accessible to the picker, being outside the main storage carousel, regardless of its location with respect to the carousel or rotatability with respect to the gripper, and is thereby a mere matter of design choice, absent evidence of a criticality or unexpected result thereto the location and mounting of the nest.
Further, the recitation “rotating the carousel” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight when the prior art device is capable of performing the claimed process. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. – MPEP 2114(II). Given an applied force of sufficient strength, the transfer station 50 is fully capable of being rotated respective to the gripper.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas does not specifically teach the storage device discussed above wherein distances between the rotation axis and radial symmetry axes of rectangular portions of the storage locations and the nest(s) are the same, as in Claim 14.
However, mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious that the nests and storage locations perform their identical function of holding tube racks (objects) regardless of their location with respect to the rotational and/or radial symmetry axes, and would thereby be seen as an obvious matter of mere design choice.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosmas in view of Howard et al. (US 2010/0028214 A1), hereinafter “Howard”. Cosmas has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas does not specifically teach the storage device discussed above wherein the nest comprises:
three corner supports arranged on first, second, and third corners of a rectangle, with each corner support having two lateral stops located at edges of the rectangle,
a clamp located at a fourth corner of the rectangle, and
an actuator structured to horizontally move the clamp, as in Claim 13.
However, Howard teaches a respective tube picking mechanism for an automated, low temperature storage and retrieval system wherein a shuttle member 52 for holding a tube rack 176 comprises three corner supports arranged on first, second, and third corners of a rectangle (See Fig. 13A showing a dashed line representing the supports beneath the tube rack 176 for supporting the tube rack 176.), with each corner support having two lateral stops located at edges of the rectangle (The supports extending between the corner supports along the lateral edges of the rectangular shuttle opening of the rectangular shuttle frame 52.), a clamp 204 located at a fourth corner of the rectangle (See Fig. 13A showing clamping mechanism 204 at a corner of the rectangular shuttle frame 52.), and an actuator 206 structured to horizontally move the clamp 204 (See Fig. 13A showing the cam lever 206.). Therein, such an arrangement allows the tube rack to be mechanically secured in its holder (nest) such that it is unlikely it will fall out or come out of alignment, thereby avoiding errors thereto.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the storage device of Cosmas wherein the nest comprises: three corner supports arranged on first, second, and third corners of a rectangle, with each corner support having two lateral stops located at edges of the rectangle, a clamp located at a fourth corner of the rectangle, and an actuator structured to horizontally move the clamp, such as suggested by Howard, so as to allow the tube rack to be mechanically secured in its holder (nest) such that it is unlikely it will fall out or come out of alignment, thereby avoiding errors thereto.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cosmas in view of Babson (US 2006/0245865 A1), hereinafter “Babson”. Cosmas has been discussed above.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Cosmas teaches the storage device discussed above further comprising:
a plurality of storage racks 22 mounted to said carousel 12 and forming the tube rack storage locations 21 ([0031]: “As can be seen from Fig. 2, the carousel storage locations 21 are formed by a plurality of storage cassettes 22 arranged side by side along the periphery of carousel 12. Each storage cassette 22 contains a plurality of the storage locations 21 arranged above each other.”), as in Claim 17.
Further regarding Claim 17, Cosmas does not specifically teach the storage device discussed above wherein for each storage rack, a spring member laterally positioning a top end of the storage rack, as in Claim 17.
However, Babson teaches a respective carousel-based rack storage system wherein racks are secured/mounted to slots of the carousel, and wherein “a spring or other elastic device is used to hold the linear rack firmly in place against a side wall of the slot in the carousel” ([0006]). Further therein, mere change in orientation or position of elements absent any criticality or unexpected result is an obvious matter of design choice – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C). Herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it an obvious alternative design choice to place the spring-loaded member on the rack instead of the receptacle, wherein such a change in the positions of the elements would not result in any change in their functions of keeping the rack firmly positioned in the receptacle.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the storage device of Cosmas wherein for each storage rack, a spring member laterally positioning a top end of the storage rack, such as suggested by Babson and as would be seen as a mere matter of obvious design choice by one skilled in the art, so as to provide for the racks to be firmly secured to the carousel, and so as to be removable/replaceable while holding all their contents for batch processes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
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.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights