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 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-12, 17-20, 23-28, 31, 32, 37, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 19 each recite the phrase "the carriage coupled to the gantry ... and the carriage actuator to move the carriage relative to the gantry". This language does not clearly allocate the recited structural and functional relationships. It is not clear whether the carriage is coupled to both the gantry and the carriage actuator, or whether the claim intends to state that the carriage is coupled to the gantry and the carriage actuator moves the carriage. The omission of finite verbs and separating punctuation leaves the relationship among the carriage, gantry, and carriage actuator uncertain. The dependent claims incorporate the same ambiguity.
Claim 7 recites, "wherein the carriage actuator is to position the carriage beneath the first reagent cartridge and move the carriage through the first access aperture to lift the first reagent cartridge from the first position, further comprises a third reagent
cartridge and a drawer carrying the third reagent cartridge." The phrase “further comprises” has no identified subject. Because the phrase follows a wherein clause whose subject is the carriage actuator, the claim does not establish whether the apparatus, the system, the queue, the carriage actuator, or another element comprises the third reagent cartridge and drawer. The subsequent reference to “the third cartridge” also differs from the introduced “third reagent cartridge.” This is confusing and indefinite.
Claim 32, line 4 recites "a vertical frame coupled to the first block". Line 7 recites "a horizonal frame to which the horizontal guide is coupled," with the gantry actuator recited both "to horizontally move the carriage" and "to horizontally move the vertical guide." The claim does not establish whether the limitation “horizonal frame” is a misspelling of “horizontal frame”, a misspelling of “vertical frame”, or a distinct additional frame. The specification fails to clarify the issue. Applicant’s para [00521] repeats “horizonal frame”, para [0230] defines vertical frame 3110, and para [0231] states that horizontal guide 3004 is coupled to vertical frame 3110. The syntax also permits the phrase “to horizontally move” to modify both the carriage and the frame. These competing structural interpretations change the claimed moving and fixed members. Thus, the metes and bounds of this claim cannot be determined.
Claim 43, line 3 recites "lift the corresponding reagent cartridge." Parent claim 19 does not define a singular corresponding reagent cartridge or the relationship that makes a reagent cartridge “corresponding”. The dependency therefore does not provide adequate antecedent basis for a corresponding reagent cartridge.
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, 5, 19 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue et al., (US 20140286124; hereinafter “Donohue”) in view of Brewer et al., (US 20230134019; hereinafter “Brewer”).
Regarding claim 1, Donohue discloses an apparatus comprising:
"first and second reagent cartridges." Donohue discloses multiple reagent cartridges 28 carried in storage rows 78 and operating rows 102. See paras. [0044]-[0046] and [0062]-[0066] and Figs. 8-11 and 14-18.
"a queue to carry the first reagent cartridge and the second reagent cartridge."
Donohue discloses storage areas 74 having drawers 72 with multiple rows 78 and operating areas 76 having multiple rows 102. The rows carry multiple reagent cartridges 28, and robot 104 transfers selected cartridges from the storage rows to the operating rows. See paras. [0043]-[0046] and [0062]-[0066] and Figs. 8-11, 14, and 16-18. The storage rows and the staged delivery of the cartridges to robot 104 correspond to the recited queue.
"a cartridge moving assembly comprising a gantry, a carriage actuator, and a
carriage." Donohue discloses robot 104 having motors 106a and 106b, X-location member 108, Y-location member 110, and reagent-cartridge carrying device 112. Motor 106a moves carrying device 112 along Y-location member 110. Motor 106b moves Y-location member 110 and carrying device 112 along X-location member 108. X-location member 108 and Y-location member 110 correspond to the gantry, motors 106a and 106b correspond to the carriage actuator, and carrying device 112 corresponds to the carriage. See paras. [0062]-[0064] and Figs. 16-17.
"a cartridge receptacle assembly comprising a cartridge receptacle to receive the first reagent cartridge or the second reagent cartridge." Donohue discloses that robot 104 transfers a selected reagent cartridge 28 into an operating row 102. Opposed mating guide members 80 support the cartridge, and spring member 58 engages pocket 90b to secure the cartridge in the operating position. Each cartridge-receiving location in operating row 102 corresponds to the recited cartridge receptacle. See paras. [0065]-[0066] and Figs. 14 and 16-18.
"wherein the carriage is to move the first reagent cartridge from the queue and position the first reagent cartridge into the cartridge receptacle." Donohue discloses that carrying device 112 engages one reagent cartridge 28 at a time and transfers the cartridge from a row 78 of storage drawer 72 to a row 102 of operating area 76. See paras. [0063]-[0065] and Figs. 16-17.
"wherein the carriage is to move the first reagent cartridge from the queue and
position the first reagent cartridge into the cartridge receptacle." Donohue discloses that
carrying device 112 engages one reagent cartridge 28 at a time and transfers the
cartridge from a row 78 of storage drawer 72 to a row 102 of operating area 76. See
paras. [0063]-[0065] and Figs. 16-17.
"a sipper manifold assembly comprising a sipper." Donohue discloses pipetting
device 120 for accessing reagent in cartridges positioned in operating area 76. See
para. [0068] and Fig. 16. Donohue positions a selected reagent cartridge at an operating location for access by a liquid-transfer device; however, Donohue does not disclose the recited sipper manifold assembly.
Brewer discloses a system 100 having reagent-reservoir receptacle 102, sample-cartridge receptacle 106, reagent-sipper manifold assembly 114 with reagent sippers 115, sample-sipper manifold assembly 118 with sample sippers 119, and actuator 116. See paras. [0086] and [0112]-[0115] and Figs. 1-3. Brewer further discloses that actuator 116 moves reagent-sipper manifold assembly 114 toward reagent-reservoir receptacle 102 and moves sample sippers 119 toward sample-cartridge receptacle 106. See paras. [0112]-[0115] and Figs. 1-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to use Brewer's sipper manifold assembly to perform
the reagent-access function at Donahue's operating positions. Donohue places a
selected cartridge at a defined operating position and maintains the reagent containers
in known relation to pipetting device 120. See Donohue paras. [0065)-[0068]. Brewer
mounts plural sippers on a common manifold base and uses actuator 116 to move the
manifold toward reagent containers held at predetermined receptacle positions. See
Brewer paras. [0086] and [0112]-[0115]. The common base would maintain the relative
spacing of the sippers while the actuator brought the sippers into and out of the
cartridge positioned by Donohue's robot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had
a reasonable expectation of success because both Donohue and Brewer withdraw
reagent from containers held at defined operating locations by controlled relative
movement between a fluid-transfer member and the container. The modification would
have required arranging the sippers to correspond to Donohue's cartridge positions and
coordinating actuator 116 with Donohue’s controller. Those matters involve routine
selection of spacing and travel well known in the art, and Donohue's cartridge-storage and robot-transfer functions would have remained unchanged.
Regarding claim 5, the claim further recites "a shelf having a first position and a
second position, the first reagent cartridge positioned at the first position and the second
reagent cartridge positioned at the second position." Donohue discloses storage drawer 72 having multiple rows 78 that separately support reagent cartridges 28. Figs. 10-11 show cartridges 28a and 28b in respective rows 78a and 78b. See paras. [0044]-[0046] and Figs. 10-11. The row-support structure corresponds to the recited shelf having first and second cartridge positions.
Regarding claim 19, Donohue discloses the recited queue, gantry, carriage
actuator, carriage, cartridge receptacle assembly, and cartridge-transfer arrangement
for the reasons set forth for claim 1. See Donohue paras. [0043]-[0046],
[0062]-[0068] and Figs. 8-11 and 14-18. Brewer discloses the recited sipper manifold
assembly and sippers. See Brewer paras. [0086] and [0112]-[0115] and Figs. 1-3.
Regarding claim 43, as best understood, the claim further recites "a pair of lifting
arms positioned to lift the corresponding reagent cartridge." Donohue discloses that
carrying device 112 includes a pair of sheet-metal plates 112a that engage and lift a
reagent cartridge 28. Robot 104 position carrying device 112 relative to a selected cartridge row. See paras. [0062]-[0065] and Figs. 16-17. The paired plates 112a correspond to the recited lifting arms.
Claims 6, 7, 11, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue and Brewer, as applied above, and further in view of Sun (US 20190293344; hereinafter “Sun”).
Regarding claim 6, the claim further recites "a first access aperture at the first position and a second access aperture at the second position." Donohue shows access beneath the cartridge positions in the bottom view of Fig. 11, and plates 112a engage and lift cartridges from those positions. See paras. [0046] and [0062]-[0065] and Figs. 11 and 16-17. Donohue does not disclose a separate access aperture at each cartridge position.
In the related art of automated storage and retrieval of laboratory consumables, Sun discloses platform 121 having aperture 124 extending through support surfaces 127a-d to expose the bottom of a supported sample box. Picker robot 140 operates push-up arm 144 below platform 121 and passes push-up pin 143 through aperture 124 and the sample box to raise a selected sample tube. See paras. [0077]-[0078] and Figs. 11A-13.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an access aperture at each of Donahue's cartridge positions, as taught by Sun, so that a lifting member positioned below the support could pass through the support while the support continued to carry the stored cartridge. Donohue already supports cartridges at defined drawer positions and removes selected cartridges individually. Sun teaches the corresponding mechanical arrangement of an article-support surface, an aperture beneath the supported article, and a lifting member that passes through the aperture from below. See Sun paras. [0077]-[0078]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the apertures are passive features and Sun teaches that the support continues to carry the article until the below-support member lifts it. Providing openings sized for Donahue's lifting member at the existing cartridge positions would not have changed the drawer's function of supporting the remaining cartridges.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, further recites positioning the carriage beneath the first reagent cartridge, moving the carriage through the first access aperture to lift the first reagent cartridge, a third reagent cartridge carried by a drawer having an access aperture, and moving the carriage through the drawer access aperture to lift the third reagent cartridge. Donohue discloses multiple cartridges 28 carried by drawers 72, transfer of individual cartridges from rows 78 to operating rows 102, and paired plates 112a that engage and lift one cartridge at a time. See paras. [0044]-[0046] and [0062]-[0065] and Figs. 8-11 and 16-17. Sun discloses picker robot 140 below platform 121, push-up arm 144, and push-up pin 143 passing through aperture 124 to raise a selected article from below. See paras. [0077]-[0078] and Figs.11A-13. Providing Sun's below-support access arrangement at each recited drawer position would permit the lifting member to reach the underside of the selected cartridge without removing the drawer or interfering with the upper cartridge-support surfaces. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that the arrangement would lift Donahue's cartridge because Sun uses the same relative placement of a supported article, an aligned access aperture, and a lifting member moving upward from below. The required aperture dimensions and lift travel would have been selected to fit Donahue's cartridge and paired lifting plates by routine mechanical design.
Regarding claim 11, the claim further recites "a movable door enabling access to the drawer." Donohue discloses drawer 72 moving between an open position for loading reagent cartridges and a closed position during operation. The front portion of drawer 72 closes the corresponding opening when the drawer is in the closed position and moves with the drawer to permit access when the drawer is opened. See paras. [0043]-[0045] and Figs. 8-9. Furthermore, placing a movable cabinet door over a reagent-loading drawer would have been a conventional safety and contamination control expedient as well known in the art.
Regarding claim 37, the claim further recites first and second queue positions and access apertures, shelf receptacles, lifting through the first aperture, and a carriage having a pair of protrusions. Donohue discloses multiple cartridge rows 78, cartridge-receiving positions, and paired plates 112a that engage and lift a selected cartridge. See paras. [0044 ]-[0046] and [0062]-[0065] and Figs. 10-11 and 16-17. Sun discloses apertures through support surfaces and a lifting member positioned below the support that passes through an aperture. See paras. [0077]-[0078] and Figs. 11 A-13. Donohue's paired plates 112a correspond to the recited protrusions. It would have been obvious to align the two protrusions with an access opening at each queue position so that the protrusions could lift the selected cartridge while the shelf continued to support the cartridges at the other positions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Sun teaches below-support lifting through an aligned opening and Donohue teaches that the paired plates already lift one selected cartridge. Forming the openings to clear the paired plates would have been a routine dimensional accommodation.
Claims 3, 4, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue and Brewer and further in view of Corey et al., (US 20160129445; hereinafter “Corey”).
Regarding claim 3, the claim further recites that the cartridge receptacle assembly comprises an opening and a lock movable between unlocked and locked positions, with the cartridge insertable when the lock is unlocked and securable when the lock is locked. Donohue discloses operating row 102 for receiving a cartridge, spring member 58 engaging pocket 90, and lever 112b and cam 112c engaging and disengaging spring member 58. See paras. [0038], [0047]-[0049], [0062], and [0065] and Figs. 10-11 and 16-17. Donohue does not expressly disclose the cartridge-receptacle lock recited in claim 3. Corey discloses cartridge holder 652 with an open end and pivotal latch 654. On insertion, cartridge 10 depresses hook 656 until the hook enters a cartridge recess, the torsion spring 662 retains the hook in the recess, and the pivoting latch 64 releases the cartridge, see paras [0290] et seq. and Fig. 46.
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have used Corey’s two-position receptacle latch in Donohue's operating receptacle to provide positive retention against handling loads and controlled release of each robotically delivered cartridge. Both references concern automated analytical cartridges and substitution preserves the known function of each component.
Regarding claim 4, the claim further recites that the lock comprises a lock actuator and an arm and that the actuator moves the arm between the unlocked and locked positions. Corey discloses latch 654 pivotally mounted on latch pin 660 and having hook 656 and trailing lever 658. Motor 602 drives linear actuator 604 and cam frame 606. As cam frame 606 advances, linear-actuator connector 618 contacts lever 658 and rotates latch 654 against spring 662 to release cartridge 10. See paras.[0292]-[0294] and Figs. 46-48. Donohue also discloses lever 112b and cam 112c acting on spring member 58. See para. [0062] and Figs. 16-17. It would have been obvious to use Corey's actuator with Corey's latch because those components are disclosed as a cooperating assembly for moving the latch arm between its retention and release positions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Corey teaches the completed actuator-to-latch motion, and mounting that assembly at Donohue's receptacle would have required only routine selection of actuator stroke and contact position.
Regarding claim 23, the claim further recites a lock movable between unlocked and locked positions and a reagent cartridge positionable and securable in the receptacle. Corey discloses cartridge holder 652 that slidably receives cartridge 10. Latch hook 656 engages a recess in cartridge 10 under the bias of spring 662 to secure the cartridge. Contact with lever 658 rotates latch 654 about pin 660 to release the cartridge. See paras. [0290]-[0294] and Figs. 46-48. Applying Corey's latch to Donohue's cartridge receptacle would have provided the recited locked condition after insertion and the unlocked condition for removal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Corey teaches that the cartridge itself can depress the hook during insertion and that the spring then seats the hook in a cartridge recess; Donohue's cartridge pocket 90 provides a corresponding engagement location. Adapting the hook and recess dimensions would have been routine.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue, Brewer, and Corey, as applied above, and further in view of Bacon (US 20120174633; hereinafter "Bacon").q
Regarding claims 24 and 25, the claims further recite a lock actuator, an actuator rod, a pivoted link, and an arm, with linear movement of the rod causing the arm to rotate about the pivot between locked and unlocked positions. Corey discloses an actuator-driven pivoting cartridge latch but does not expressly disclose the recited rod-link-crank arrangement. Bacon discloses solenoid controller 11/15, actuator rod 133, crank arm 130 on pivoting lock cam 74, and pivoted link 83 coupling crank arm 76 to deadbolt 80. Linear movement of actuator rod 133 rotates the cam and moves the deadbolt between locked and unlocked positions. See paras. [0035]-[0039] and Figs. 1-12 and 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bacon's rod-and-link drive to operate Corey's pivoting latch. Corey requires controlled rotation of latch 654, and Bacon teaches a known linkage for converting the linear stroke of an actuator rod into rotation of a locking member. The linkage would permit the actuator to be placed apart from the latch while transmitting the required motion to the latch arm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Bacon teaches the same linear-to-rotary conversion in a locking mechanism. Selecting the rod stroke, pivot location, and link length to provide Corey's disclosed latch rotation would have been routine, and Corey's cartridge-retention function would have remained unchanged.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue and Brewer, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lemoine et al., (US 20190299210; hereinafter "Lemoine") and Guo et al., (US 20210121882; hereinafter "Guo").
Regarding claim 12, the claim further recites "a first reagent cartridge assembly comprising the first reagent cartridge and a first flow cell" and "a system flow-cell interface configured to receive the first flow cell." Donohue and Brewer do not expressly disclose this configuration. Lemoine discloses cartridge assembly 100 containing reagent wells 154/156 and a removable flow-cell cartridge 900 received in flow-cell chamber 108. Chamber 108 positions flow-cell cartridge 900 so that its window and ports align with corresponding interface windows and ports of cartridge assembly 100. See paras. [0074],[0077]-[0086], and [0175]-[0178] and Figs. 1A-1F and 9A-9E.
Claim 12 further recites a lid and a body pivotably coupled together, with the lid covering the flow cell. Lemoine does not expressly disclose this limitation. Guo discloses a flow-cell cartridge chassis having a hinged clamshell configuration that opens so that one or more capillary or chip flow-cell elements can be removed and replaced and that mounts in an instrument holder. See paras. [0172] and [0175] and Figs. 2-3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Lemoine's cartridge assembly at the operating location of the Donohue-Brewer system. Donohue and Brewer automate cartridge placement and reagent access, while Lemoine provides a reagent-bearing cartridge assembly in which a removable flow-cell cartridge is held with its window and fluid ports aligned to corresponding cartridge-interface features. See Lemoine paras. [0074], [0077]-[0086], and [0175]-[0178]. The modification would permit the automated reagent-handling system to deliver reagent through a replaceable flow cell located by the cartridge assembly. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lemoine teaches the completed reagent-well, flow-cell chamber, port, and window arrangement, and the combined system would use Donohue and Brewer for their respective cartridge-positioning and fluid-withdrawal functions without changing Lemoine's internal flow-cell alignment. It further would have been obvious to provide Lemoine's removable flow-cell cartridge with Guo's hinged chassis so that the flow cell would be protected and retained during handling and exposed for removal and placement at the instrument interface. Guo teaches that the hinged chassis opens for removal and replacement of flow-cell elements and mounts in an instrument holder. See Guo paras. [0172] and [0175]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references use removable flow-cell structures mounted in rigid instrument-facing holders. The hinge and cover would perform their disclosed protective and access functions without altering Lemoine's aligned fluid ports or viewing window.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue, Brewer, Lemoine, and Guo, as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Cheung et al., (US 20230417787; hereinafter "Cheung").
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Donohue, Brewer, Lemoine, and Guo does not expressly disclose a pick-and-place assembly configured to move the first flow cell from the first reagent cartridge assembly to the flow-cell interface. Cheung discloses robotic arm 318 having opposed left and right effectors 317 and 316. The robotic arm moves toward a sequencing module comprising a sequencing cartridge and a sequencing flow cell, extends the effectors around the module, contracts the effectors to hold the module, and moves the module to sequencer 315. See paras. [0026]-[0029] and Figs. 3B-3F and 4G-4J.
Regarding claim 18, the claim further recites that the pick-and-place assembly comprises an actuator and a gripper, that the actuator moves the gripper, and that the gripper moves the flow cell. Cheung discloses a software-controlled rotary arm and movable support that position opposed effectors 316/317. The effectors extend, contract, hold, move, and load the sequencing module containing the flow cell. See paras. [0026]-[0029] and Figs. 3B-3F and 4G-4J.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Cheung's software-controlled robotic arm and opposed effectors to transfer Lemoine's removable flow-cell cartridge after Guo's hinged chassis is opened. Lemoine and Guo make the flow-cell structure accessible for removal, and Cheung supplies a known pick-and-place arrangement for grasping a rigid sequencing component containing a flow cell and moving it to a sequencer. See Cheung paras. [0026)-[0029]. Automating that transfer would reduce manual handling and provide repeatable placement at the system flow-cell interface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Cheung teaches extension of the effectors around the sequencing component, contraction to grip it, and controlled robotic movement to the instrument. Lemoine's removable flow-cell cartridge is likewise a rigid, removable instrument component. Adjusting the effector spacing, gripping force, and travel path to the dimensions of Lemoine's cartridge would have been routine and would not have changed the flow-cell interface. The same opposed effectors and their software-controlled actuator satisfy the additional actuator-and-gripper limitations of claim 18.
Claims 20 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue and Brewer, as applied to claim 19, and further in view of VanSickler et al., (US 20200319219; hereinafter "VanSickler").
Regarding claim 20, Donohue discloses two-axis robot motion using X-location member 108, Y-location member 110, motors 106a and 106b, and carrying device 112.
See paras. [0062]-[0064] and Figs. 16-17. Donohue and Brewer do not expressly disclose a two-dimensional gantry having a pair of horizontal guides and a vertical guide movably coupled to the horizontal guides, with the carriage actuator moving the carriage along the vertical guide. VanSickler discloses rack-handler robot 320 having horizontal track member 330 with base 332 and rails 334, vertical track member 340 with base 342 and rails 344, horizontal rail mount 345 that slides on rails 334, and rack carriage 350 coupled to vertical rail mount 352 that slides on rails 344. VanSickler further discloses drives for moving vertical track member 340 horizontally and carriage 350 vertically. See paras. [0208]-[0212] and Figs. 14A-14H. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use VanSickler's rail-and-mount arrangement to support and guide Donohue's cartridge-carrying device along the recited orthogonal axes. Donohue already requires controlled movement of carrying device 112 in two directions, and VanSickler provides a known two-axis rail structure for accurately positioning a laboratory-article carrier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because VanSickler teaches the complete horizontal and vertical guide, mount, carriage, and drive arrangement. Mounting Donahue's carrying device to VanSickler's vertical rail mount and coordinating the two drives with Donahue's controller would have preserved.Donohue's cartridge-engagement function and involved routine mechanical attachment and motion control.
Regarding claim 32, as best understood, the claim intends the horizontal track member and base to be the fixed horizontal frame and the vertical track member and base to move horizontally. VanSickler discloses rails 334 corresponding to the first rail, horizontal rail mount 345 corresponding to the first block, vertical track member 340 and base 342 corresponding to the vertical frame coupled to the first block, rails 344 corresponding to the second rail, and vertical rail mount 352 coupled to carriage 350 corresponding to the second block. Motor 348, pulleys 349, and belt 347 move vertical rail mount 352 and carriage 350 vertically, while the horizontal drive moves vertical track member 340 along rails 334. See paras. [0208)-[0212] and Figs. 14A-14H. Donohue discloses the reagent-cartridge carrying function. See paras. [0062]-[0065] and Figs.16-17. It would have been obvious to mount Donohue's cartridge-carrying device on VanSickler's second block because that block is the disclosed load-carrying member that travels on the vertical rail while the vertical frame travels on the horizontal rails. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because VanSickler discloses these rails, blocks, frame, and drives as an integrated two-axis assembly; substituting Donahue's cartridge-carrying device for the carried rack structure would not have changed the operation of the guides or drives.
Claims 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue in view of Brewer, as applied to claim 19, and further in view of Corey and Bacon, as applied to claims 23 and 24.
Regarding claim 26, the claim further recites a guide coupled to the sipper-manifold base and defining an aperture corresponding to the sipper. Brewer discloses guide 220 coupled to manifold base 202 and defining apertures 224 corresponding to sample sippers 119. The sippers pass through apertures 224 as the manifold moves toward sample-cartridge receptacle 106. See paras. [0086] and [0112]-[0115] and Figs. 1-3. It would have been obvious to align Brewer's guide aperture with the opening of the cartridge-receptacle structure so that the guided sipper could enter the installed cartridge. Brewer teaches that guide 220 supports the sippers during movement through apertures 224 and reduces bending or buckling. See paras. [0114]-[0115]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Brewer discloses the guide and sippers as cooperating parts of the same manifold assembly; locating the receptacle opening on the same sipper axis would have involved routine alignment of known components.
Regarding claim 27, Brewer discloses linear actuator 116 moving reagent-sipper manifold assembly 114 toward reagent-reservoir receptacle 102. Brewer also discloses guide 220 defining apertures 224 through which corresponding sippers pass. See paras. [0086] and [0112)-(0115] and Figs. 1-3. It would have been obvious to use Brewer's actuator and guide together at the cartridge receptacle because the guide is provided to maintain sipper alignment during the actuator-driven approach to a receptacle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Brewer teaches the actuator, manifold, guide, and sippers operating together; setting the actuator stroke to place the sipper through the aligned receptacle opening would have been a routine travel adjustment.
Regarding claim 28, Brewer discloses manifold bases 202/602, carriages 204/604, vertical guides 209/606 coupling each base and carriage, guide rails 210 and blocks 212, and lead-screw assembly 624 moving carriage 604 and sipper 611 vertically. See paras. [0112]-[0115], [0134], and [0139] and Figs. 2-3 and 12-14. It would have been obvious to use Brewer's rail-and-lead-screw arrangement to move the sipper along the insertion axis because that arrangement provides constrained, controllable translation of the carriage relative to the manifold base. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Brewer teaches the base, carriage, guide, and lead screw as an operative sipper-positioning assembly. Selecting the screw travel and mounting height to reach the installed cartridge would have been routine and would have preserved the alignment supplied by the guide.
Corey and Bacon remain in the rejection because claim 28 depends from claims 23 and 24 and therefore includes the lock and linkage limitations of those claims. Corey and Bacon remain in the rejection of claims 26 and 27 because those claims depend from claims 23 and 24 and therefore include the lock and linkage limitations of those claims.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donohue, Brewer, Corey, and Bacon, as applied to claims 19, 23, 24, 26, and 27, and further in view of LaChance et al., (US 20190086436; hereinafter "LaChance").
Regarding claim 31, Brewer discloses horizontal movement of a sipper-manifold guide but does not expressly disclose a rack-and-pinion actuator configured to move the sipper horizontally. LaChance discloses an automated-analysis gantry having a bar or rail for moving manifold 102 along an axis and identifies gearing and a rack-and-pinion assembly as suitable devices for producing that movement. See para. [0039] and Figs. 1-3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rack-and-pinion drive identified by Lachance to provide Brewer's horizontal manifold movement. Brewer requires controlled translation of the manifold to place the sipper at the selected operating position, and LaChance identifies a rack-and-pinion drive as a suitable mechanism for moving an analysis manifold along a rail. The drive would convert motor rotation into positive linear travel while the rail maintained the manifold's path. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Lachance teaches the rack-and-pinion drive for the same component movement in automated analysis equipment. Attaching the rack and pinion to Brewer's guide and setting the travel limits for Brewer's receptacle positions would have been routine and would not have changed Brewer's sipper-guide relationship.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of grammatical ambiguity. The examiner recommends the following amendment to claim 1 would remove the grammatical ambiguity. This amendment would not, by itself, overcome the 35 USC §103 rejection set forth above.
1. An apparatus comprising:
a first reagent cartridge;
a second reagent cartridge; and
a system, comprising:
a sipper manifold assembly comprising:
a sipper;
a queue to carry the first reagent cartridge and the second reagent
cartridge;
a cartridge moving assembly comprising a gantry, a carriage actuator, and
a carriage being coupled to the gantry, and
the carriage actuator being configured to move the carriage relative to the gantry; and
a cartridge receptacle assembly comprising a cartridge receptacle configured to receive the first reagent cartridge or the second reagent cartridge, wherein the carriage is configured to move the first reagent cartridge from the queue and position the first reagent cartridge into the cartridge receptacle.
A corresponding amendment is recommended for independent claim 19.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art is hereby made of record. Although the prior art is relied upon in the rejection above, the examiner considers it relevant to the claimed subject matter and it may be relied upon in a future prior art rejection or as background information.
Stone et al., (US 20150045234) teach a manifold, downward reagent sippers, cartridge reservoirs, vertical engagement, valves, and fluid delivery to a flow cell.
Wiltsie (US 20130203046) teaches cartridge loading unit with multiple linear cartridge lanes, individual or simultaneous loading of assay cartridges, presentation lane, input queue with pusher carriage, pusher plate, linear-guide queue track, drive and a cartridge carriage moving along a track beneath a cartridge guide to engage an assay cartridge from below.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached between 9:30am-7pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on 571-270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights