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 .
Claims 9-10,13-15,17,19-30 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.
As to claim 9, “under a conveyor power of the upper track of the lower track” (italics added) is confusing. (Specification merely repeats the same phrase) Does the lower track provide power to the upper track? What is Applicant’s intent?
As to claims 20-27, “the transferring device comprising a second transferring device” is confusing. How can one such device comprise two? Note that the structure (robot) of claim 20’s second transferring device in Figure 8 appears to be a different embodiment from the structure (stops) of intermediate claim 8, and is thus combining limitations from different embodiments.
As to claim 25,27, “the carrying member” (lines 1-2) is confusing because the claim includes “a plurality of carrying members” (claim 20). Does claim 25 further limit just one of the plurality, or all? How does “the carrying member” (lines 1-2) relate back to the plurality?
As to claim 30, the preamble calls for a “method”, but the many conditional ifs (S1,S2,S3,S5,S6) do not serve to describe steps of a method because every “if” limitation is indefinite. The body of claim 30 is suitable for describing a flow chart, but is entirely uncertain as to what steps actually occur for transferring sample holders from a lower track to an upper track. Understand, the term “if” is not an alternative; an “if” is indefinite as to what step is actually to take place in transferring sample holders.
As to claim 30, each of S7, S8 and S9 are not steps; maybe, each provides a state that expresses what the transferring device (might be) be doing. Understand, method claims call for clearly expressed steps (actions, if you will); none are apparent.
Claim(s) 1,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takashi JP H07234228.
Takashi teaches (Figure 3) a double-layer track apparatus, comprising:
an upper track, wherein along a conveying direction of the upper track, a testing unit is provided at a middle of the upper track, an upstream section of the upper track is configured to convey a sample holder to an input end of the testing unit, and an output end of the testing unit is configured to convey the sample holder to a downstream section of the upper track;
a lower track located below the upper track, wherein the downstream section of the upper track is configure to convey the sample holder to an input end of the lower track, and an output end of the lower track is configured to convey the sample holder to an input end of the upper track.
PNG
media_image1.png
282
580
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The test unit is not in the “middle” of the upper track.
As to claim 1, the drawing is schematic, as such either the test unit is in the middle of the upper track, or in the alternative, one of ordinary skill would recognize that test units may be effectively positioned anywhere along line 13d. The lines 13a,b,c,d are as much an upper track as claimed.
As to claim 7, Figure 3 teaches the transferring device 20,13e.
Claim(s) 1,7,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by Markin et al 5,351,801.
Markin teaches s double-layer track apparatus, comprising:
an upper track, wherein along a conveying direction of the upper track, a testing unit is provided at a middle of the upper track, an upstream section of the upper track is configured to convey a sample holder to an input end of the testing unit 94c (sensor 94c of Figure 6 that represents input and output of test unit), and an output end of the testing unit is configured to convey the sample holder to a downstream section of the upper track (Figure 6 shows that the downstream extends from the sensor 94c to the elevator 38)
PNG
media_image2.png
884
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
740
546
media_image3.png
Greyscale
;
a lower track located below the upper track, wherein the downstream section of the upper track is configure to convey the sample holder to an input end of the lower track, and an output end of the lower track is configured to convey the sample holder to an input end of the upper track
PNG
media_image4.png
988
704
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
The restraining unit 92 as a whole extends around the upper track, and as such detects presence/absence of the holder 12 (column 6, 4th full paragraph). The unit 92 is a sensor testing unit in the middle of the track.
As to claim 1, the drawing is schematic, as such either the test unit is in the middle of the upper track, or in the alternative, one of ordinary skill would recognize that test units may be effectively positioned anywhere along line 13d. The lines 13a,b,c,d are as much an upper track as claimed.
As to claim 7, elevator 38 provides the transferring unit.
As to claim 8, there are stops 144 at the elevators 38 at the ends of the upper track.
Claims 2-4 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT R RAEVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-2204. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon to Fri from 8am to 4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera, can be reached at telephone number 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/ROBERT R RAEVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights