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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/17/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 132, 135, 140, 145, 150, 155, 160, 165, 170, 174, 175, 176, 178, 180, 182, 184, 186. Note: this list of reference signs is non-exhaustive, and Applicant’s assistance is requested in ensuring that all reference signs mentioned in the description are shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the second actuator is operable to control the dispensing function” in the last 2 lines; however, this would appear to be redundant because prior lines 5-6 recite “a second actuator disposed in the proximal section operable to control a dispensing function of the multichannel pipette”.
In claim 3, it is believed “an aspiration function” should read “the aspiration function” as antecedent basis for this limitation has already been provided in claim 1.
In claim 3, it is believed “a dispensing function” should read “the dispensing function” as antecedent basis for this limitation has already been provided in claim 1.
In claim 4, it is believed “the aspirate function” should read “the aspiration function” to match the style of the prior claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suovaniemi et al. (GB 2045641 A) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Suovaniemi et al. discloses a multichannel pipette (Abstract, p. 1 lines 44-49) comprising:
a proximal section (comprising portion 1) having a handle (p. 1 lines 53-56) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 1);
a distal section (comprising casing 19) configured to reversibly engage a plurality of pipette tips (p. 1 lines 54-63) (Fig. 1);
a first actuator (8) disposed in the proximal section (p. 1 lines 70-75, 111-126) (Fig. 1); and
a second actuator (14) disposed in the proximal section and operable to control a dispensing function of the multichannel pipette (p. 1 lines 70-75, p. 1 line 126-p. 2 line 5) (Fig. 1),
wherein the first actuator (8) is operable to control an aspiration function (p. 1 lines 111-126) and the second actuator is operable to control the dispensing function (p. 1 line 126-p. 2 line 5).
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.
Claims 2-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suovaniemi et al. (GB 2045641 A) (already of record) in view of Mathus et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2009/0071267) (already of record).
Regarding claim 2, Suovaniemi et al. discloses wherein a pipette tip attached to the distal section of the multichannel pipette can be disengaged (p. 1 lines 54-63) (Fig. 1).
Suovaniemi et al. is silent as to the multichannel pipette comprising a third actuator disposed in the proximal section configured to cause a pipette tip attached to the distal section of the multichannel pipette to disengage when the third actuator is actuated.
Mathus et al. discloses a multichannel pipette comprising a proximal section having a handle and a distal section configured to reversibly engage a plurality of pipette tips (para. 23, 33) (Fig. 9, sheet 9 of 13), wherein the multichannel pipette further comprises an ejector button (20) disposed in the proximal section (para. 36-37) (Fig. 9) configured to cause a pipette tip attached to the distal section to disengage when the third actuator is actuated (para. 38-39). This allows old pipette tips to be disposed of such that the multichannel pipette can receive new pipette tips for pipetting of a different fluid without contamination (para. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multichannel pipette disclosed by Suovaniemi et al. to comprise a button (reads on a third actuator) disposed in the proximal section configured to cause a pipette tip attached to the distal section of the multichannel pipette to disengage when the third actuator is actuated, as Mathus et al. discloses that it was known in the art to provide such an actuator to eject a pipette tip from a multichannel pipette to allow for tip replacement, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to adopt a known configuration for pipette tip ejection in order to allow for replacement of pipette tips for pipetting of a new fluid without contamination.
Regarding claim 3, Suovaniemi et al. discloses wherein the first actuator (8) is configured to transition from a first undepressed position to a second depressed position (p. 1 lines 111-126), wherein the second actuator (14) is configured to transition from a first depressed position to a second undepressed position when the first actuator is transitioned from the first undepressed position to the second depressed position (p. 1 line 111-p. 2 line 17) (Fig. 1), and wherein transitioning the first actuator from the first undepressed position to the second depressed position causes an aspiration function and transitioning of the second actuator from the second undepressed position to the first depressed position causes a dispensing function (p. 1 line 111-p. 2 line 17).
Regarding claim 4, Suovaniemi et al. discloses wherein the aspirate function comprises aspiration of fluid into a pipette tip engaged with the distal section of the multichannel pipette (p. 1 lines 111-126).
Regarding claim 5, Suovaniemi et al. discloses wherein the dispensing function comprises dispensing of fluid from a pipette tip engaged with the distal section of the multichannel pipette (p. 1 line 126-p. 2 line 5).
Regarding claim 6, Suovaniemi et al. discloses wherein the multichannel pipette further comprises a plurality of gripper mechanisms (cylinder portions 3; these read on gripper mechanisms as they serve the purpose of “tight connecting” to pipette tips) (p. 1 lines 56-63) disposed in the distal section (Fig. 1), each gripper mechanism being configured to reversibly grip a pipette tip (p. 1 lines 56-63) (Fig. 1). As to the limitation each gripper mechanism being configured to reversibly grip a plunger disposed within a lumen of a pipette tip, the plunger having an engagement section for engaging the gripper mechanism and a lumen section disposed within a lumen of a pipette tip, this is a recitation of intended use of the gripper mechanisms and has therefore been given appropriate patentable weight. It is noted that the claim does not positively recite that the multichannel pipette comprises a pipette tip having a plunger. Each gripper mechanism of the plurality of gripper mechanisms disclosed by Suovaniemi et al. would be fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use, as each gripper mechanism comprises a through-hole (see lumen within cylinder portion 3) which could reversibly grip an appropriately dimensioned plunger disposed within a lumen of a pipette tip, the plunger having an engagement section for engaging the gripper mechanism and a lumen section disposed within a lumen of a pipette tip. Therefore, the noted limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, Suovaniemi et al. discloses wherein the multichannel pipette comprises 4 gripper mechanisms (p. 1 lines 53-63) (Fig. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7, and accordingly claims 9-17 and 22-23 which ultimately depend therefrom, 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.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wei et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2024/0150699) is directed to an electroporation pipette.
Walpen et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0360916) is directed to a locking actuator for a locking pipette tips.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights