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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “wheels” coupled to the module as recited in claim 82 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
In the patentability analysis of the instant system (apparatus-type) claims 80-91, 103 and 104, aspects or limitations the examiner interprets as functional/process/intended use language and/or elements that are not positively recited as part the claimed apparatus have been generally italicized whereas aspects interpreted as positively recited structural components are normally bolded. The bold font and italics are shown when the structure and function are initially introduced though not necessarily repeated, particularly in dependent claims. The examiner applies this formatting for both the examiner and applicant’s convenience. However, absent the referenced typestyles, the patentability analysis will still be clear regarding which limitations the examiner interprets as structural versus functional/process/intended use and/or not positively recited structure.
The system claim language “configured to” is given patentable weight as requiring a structure capable of performing the stated function. A prior-art structure meets such a limitation when the reference expressly shows the function or when the disclosed structure is inherently capable of it; actual performance at a particular time is not required. The rejections below identify the disclosed structure and explain the corresponding capability. Also, element(s) not positively recited as part of the apparatus do not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense with respect to the prior art. Please note these recitations have not been ignored by the examiner. All of the claim recitations have been considered and afforded the appropriate amount of patentable weight.
Under BRI the term “module” is not limited by the claims to a particular size, weight, laboratory function, or degree of complexity. The specification describes any suitable module and gives nonlimiting examples. Under BRI the “module” encompasses a separable laboratory component or unit, including a laboratory rack, carrier, multi-receptacle unit, or plate assembly, when the claimed movement and positioning relationships are present.
As discussed further below the claims with respect to 35 USC 112 (b) do not establish which physical boundary determines whether a component is “within” or “outside” the laboratory workstation. For purposes of applying the prior art under compact prosecution, “laboratory workstation” is interpreted broadly to encompass a laboratory instrument or station having an identifiable stationary body or enclosure, and the spatial limitations are evaluated relative to that body or enclosure.
The claimed phrase “via the at least one rail” and “on the at least one rail” do not require direct contact absent such language in the claims. They encompass movement or support through a drawer or carrier that is guided by the rail. A contrary interpretation would add a direct-contact limitation that the claims do not recite.
In claim 82, the three movement modes are alternatives joined by “or.” Disclosure of one of the alternatives satisfies the limitation.
The recitation “at least one” encompasses one or more rails and does not require a two-rail arrangement.
The terms “actuator platform,” “linear actuator,” “rail,” “wheel,” “fastener,” and “hinge mechanism” identify mechanical structures in the context of the claims and specification. None of the pending limitations is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) since the functional language is interpreted as stated capability of the recited structure.
The examiner's below patentability analysis provides one or more interpretations and claim mappings of the claimed structures and steps although other interpretations may be possible. In the patentability analysis, the Office applies the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification and specific limitations from the specification have not been read into the claims. See MPEP at least §2111.02, 2173.01 I 2114, and 2173.05(g). In certain instances, during prosecution, the examiner’s current interpretation(s) regarding the patentable weight of these limitation(s) might change based on the facts of the case.
Claim Objections
Claim 82 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein module is configured to” should be amended to --wherein the module is configured to--. 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.
Claims 80-91, 103-104 and 106 and 107 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 80 recites a rail positioned “at least partially within the laboratory workstation” that “extends outside of the laboratory workstation”, a module movable from a position “at least partially outside of the laboratory workstation” to a position “within the laboratory workstation,” and an actuator platform and predetermined position “within the laboratory workstation.” Independent claims 106 and 107 use the same spatial relationships to define the rail, module, actuator platform, and direction of movement. None of the claims clearly identify the physical boundary of the laboratory workstation from which “within”, “outside”, and “at least partially outside” are determined.
Looking to applicant’s specification as filed for clarification, the specification does not resolve the physical boundary. Paragraph [0049] states that laboratory workstation 104 may be a liquid-handler workstation, cell-cultivation workstation, or cell-analysis workstation; may include a workstation bench, table, counter, or other support structure; and may be an instrument positioned on top of a workstation bench. Paragraph [0053] states that actuator platform 106 may be on top of the bench or support structure and still be “within” workstation 104. Paragraph [0074] separately identifies storage within the workstation bench, in a designated space within the workstation, or outside the workstation. See Figures 1 and 2A-2D. These disclosures permit materially different boundaries without identifying which boundary controls the claims.
The specification also does not provide an objective structural distinction between the claimed workstation and module. Paragraphs [0049]-[0050] identify a cell-analysis workstation as a workstation example and a cell-analysis module as a module example, describe “any suitable module” and permit combinations not otherwise described. Thus, the same laboratory assembly may be characterized differently depending on which component is selected as the workstation and which is selected as the module.
For example, a module may be outside the enclosure of a liquid-handler instrument while remaining above and within the footprint of the workstation bench or support structure. The same location may therefore be outside the workstation under an instrument-boundary interpretation and within the workstation under a bench- or support-structure interpretation. An open-frame workstation may provide no enclosure boundary. The claims and specification provide no objective standard for selecting the instrument enclosure, structural frame, instrument footprint, bench perimeter, functional working area, or another boundary. One of ordinary skill consequently cannot determine with reasonable certainty when the rail or module crosses from “outside” to “within” the laboratory workstation or whether a particular system avoids infringement.
Claims 81-91 and 103-104 depend from claim 80 and do not cure the indefinite workstation boundary. The same reasoning applies to method claims 106 and 107. The uncertainty is material to every pending claim because the claimed rail placement, module movement, actuator location, predetermined position, storage position, or service movement is defined relative to “within” or “outside” the laboratory workstation.
As stated in MPEP 2173, “[t]he primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of patent.” Consequently, due to the indefinite issues delineated above a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the boundaries of the claimed invention or ascertain what constitutes infringement.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 80, 82, 86, and 88-91 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamashita et al., (US 20210063423; hereinafter “Yamashita”-already of record).
Regarding claim 80, Yamashita teaches a system for moving a module relative to a life sciences laboratory workstation, the system comprising:
the laboratory workstation; (Yamashita teaches an automated analyzing device 1 which corresponds to the claimed laboratory workstation. The automated analyzing device 1 includes tip rack loading means 22, housing 33, front face opening 20, drawer 21, and the rack loading mechanism, see paragraphs [84 and 103] et seq. and Figures 1-8).
“at least one rail positioned at least partially within the laboratory workstation and extends outside of the laboratory workstation” (Yamashita discloses extendable drawer rails 35 having fixed portions secured inside housing 33 and movable portions secured to drawer 21. Figure 4 depicts the fully opened drawer and extended rail assembly projecting through front-face opening 20 while the fixed rail portions remain inside housing 33. The same rail assembly is retracted in Figure 3. The housing 33 and front-face opening 20 provide the “boundary” between within and outside of the laboratory workstation. Rails 35 therefore are positioned partly within the applied workstation boundary and extend outside that boundary in the open condition, see paragraphs [103-123] and Figure 7);
“the module, wherein the module is configured to move from a first position at least partially outside of the laboratory workstation to a second position within the laboratory workstation via the at least one rail” (Yamashita’s tip rack 7 corresponds the broadly claimed module. Tip rack 7 is outside housing 33 when drawer 21 is fully open and is pushed through opening 20 into housing 33 when drawer 21 closes. Rails 35 guide and carry the loaded drawer during that movement. Movement of rack 7 on table 24 and drawer 21 are guided “via” the rails 35 under the claimed construction, see paragraphs [107-110], [195-196] and Figures 3-5 and 10A-12C);[AltContent: textbox (\)]
“an actuator platform within the laboratory workstation, wherein the actuator platform is configured to position the module 17 at a predetermined position within the laboratory workstation.” (Yamashita teaches a tip-rack mounting table 24 is a platform inside of device 1. The drawer-linked guide and arm mechanism moves table 24 vertically and horizontally. Positioning bearings 36, positioning members 43, height-reference sides 44, positioning spring 47, and pressing portions 100 then separate rack 7 from table 24 and locate the rack at the predetermined installed positions, see paragraphs [125] et seq. and Figures 6-12C and 19-21C).
Claim 82 recites “wherein module is configured to: roll on the at least one rail via at least one wheel coupled to the module from the first position to the second position, slide along a surface of the at least one rail from the first position to the second position or fasten to a fastener of the at least one rail when the at least one rail is in an extended configuration and translate from the first position to the second position when the at least one rail is moved from the extended configuration to a collapsed configuration”. Note: the alternatives are disjunctive. Yamashita discloses that rack 7/72 on a rail surface via guide roller 67.
Regarding claim 86, “wherein the module is configured to be coupled to the laboratory workstation at the predetermined position.” (Yamashita teaches at the installed position, flange portion 25 of rack 7 engages height-reference sides 44, positioning bearings 36 engage the rack, and pressing portions 100 retain the rack. That mechanical engagement couples rack 7 to the analyzer at the predetermined position, see paragraphs [125] et seq. and Figures 8 and 19-21C).
Regarding claim 88, “wherein the module is configured to be coupled to a mounting frame of the laboratory workstation at the predetermined position.” (Yamashita teaches a fixed analyzer-side assembly formed by guide rails 40, positioning members 43, height-reference sides 44, and positioning bearings 36 is a mounting frame that receives and retains rack 7 at the installed position, which corresponds to the broadly claimed mounting, see paragraphs [125] et seq. and Figures 8, 16, and 19-21C).
Regarding claim 89, “wherein the actuator platform is configured to be positioned in a storage position under the module when the module is positioned in the laboratory workstation at the predetermined position.” (Yamashita teaches when the rack 7 reaches the predetermined installed position and is separated from table 24 by the positioning structure, table 24 remains below the rack in the closed drawer. The closed, unloaded position of table 24 is a storage position under the installed module because the rack is then supported by the fixed positioning structure rather than by table 24, see paragraphs [123] et seq. and Figures 12B-12C and 20C-20D).
Regarding claim 90, “wherein the at least one rail is configured to contract from an expanded configuration to a contracted storage configuration when the module is at the predetermined position.” (Yamashita teaches the rails 35 are telescoping drawer rails having fixed and movable portions. The rails are expanded with drawer 21 fully open and contract into housing 33 as the drawer closes and rack 7 reaches its installed position. The retracted rail condition is the claimed contracted storage configuration, see paragraphs [104] et seq. and Figures 3, 4, and 10A-12C).
Regarding claim 91, “wherein the actuator platform remains in the laboratory workstation when the actuator platform is not in use.” (Yamashita teaches the table 24 is incorporated into drawer 21 and remains in automated analyzing device 1 after rack 7 is set, separated from table 24, and supported by the fixed positioning structure. Table 24 therefore remains in the workstation during its inactive condition, see paragraphs [106], [116], [128-140], and [248-250] and Figures 6-12C and 19-20D.
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 81, 103, and 104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Petersen (US 3818528).
Claim 81 recites “wherein the at least one rail comprises: a first portion; and a second portion coupled to the first portion, wherein the second portion is configured to be oriented perpendicular to the first portion and to contact a support surface”, which is not explicitly disclosed in Yamashita. Petersen discloses load-supporting track-ramp member 12 and support legs 24 and 26 coupled to the track by hinge mechanisms 28. Each leg pivots to a generally perpendicular orientation and contacts the ground, see column 2, lines 21 et seq. and Figures 1, 6 and 7.
It would have been obvious to provide Yamashita's outwardly extended rail with Petersen's hinged ground-contacting support portion to increase stability and load capacity while rack 7 is outside housing 33. Petersen is reasonably pertinent to the same problem of supporting an extended load-bearing track. The modification uses the support for its established purpose, does not alter Yamashita's drawer operation, and would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 103 recites “wherein the at least one rail comprises a first portion, a second portion, and a third portion.” Petersen discloses that each longitudinal track-ramp member 12 is composed of three separate ramp sections arranged end to end, namely a center section 12b between two outer sections 12a, see column 2, lines 32 et seq. and Figures 1, 6,and 8. The three serial sections correspond to the claimed first, second, and third portions even though Petersen uses the same reference numeral 12a for both outer sections. It would have been obvious to form Yamashita's deployable rail as Petersen's three hinged sections to retain a continuous deployed guide path while permitting compact storage. Petersen expressly teaches that result, and the known hinged-section arrangement would predictably perform the same function on Yamashita's rail.
Claim 104 recites “wherein the first portion is coupled to the second portion via a first hinge mechanism and the second portion is coupled to the third portion via a second hinge mechanism.” Petersen couples the center section 12b to each outer section 12a by a respective lateral hinge mechanism 20, thereby providing two hinge mechanisms joining the three serial portions. See column 2, lines 31 et seq. and Figures 1, 6, and 8. It would have been obvious to form Yamashita's deployable rail as Petersen's three hinged sections to retain a continuous deployed guide path while permitting compact storage. Petersen expressly teaches that result, and the known hinged-section arrangement would predictably perform the same function on Yamashita's rail.
Claims 83, 84, 87, 106 and 107 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Combs et al., (US 20200282403; hereinafter “Combs”).
Claim 83 recites “wherein the actuator platform comprises a linear actuator configured to raise or lower the module”. Yamashita discloses claim 80 and vertical movement of table 24. Combs teaches an express linear lift-platform implementation, lift-off operation, and lowering-to-position sequence. Combs discloses lift platform 180 carried by transport elevator 210. Elevator drive motor 212, drive pulleys 216 and 217, and elevator belts 220 produce controlled vertical translation of the platform. and platform 180 raises and lowers carrier 300. See paragraphs 199 and Figures 15-21. This motor-and-belt assembly is considered a linear actuator because it converts motor rotation into controlled linear platform movement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Combs's known linear lift for Yamashita's vertically moving table to provide controlled, repeatable module positioning. Both references concern automated laboratory equipment, and the substitution of one known vertical lift mechanism for another would have produced predictable vertical positioning with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 84 recites “wherein the actuator platform is configured to raise the module off the at least one rail.” Combs extends lift platform 180 beneath carrier 300 in loading drawer 280 and raises the platform with transport elevator 210 until carrier 300 is lifted off drawer shelves 286 and 292 and clear of locator pins 288 and 294. This corresponds to the claimed raising of the module off the at least one rail under the stated indirect-support construction, see paragraphs 223-225 and Figures 7, 8, 15, 16, and 20. Applied to Yamashita's rail-guided drawer endpoint. the same lift-off sequence would raise rack 7 from the rail-home drawer onto the linear actuator platform.
Claim 87 recites “wherein the actuator platform is configured to lower the module to the predetermined position.” Combs lowers platform 180 until carrier 300 is seated on holding shelf 104 and locator pins 110 and 111 enter locator hole 340 and locator slot 342; the platform then withdraws. See paragraphs 166-169 and 220-222 and Figures 4A, 11, 15-16, and 20. It would have been obvious to use this known lowering-and-locating sequence at Yamashita's installed position to obtain accurate seating and isolate the installed module from drawer vibration. Yamashita identifies accurate, vibration-isolated positioning as desirable in paragraphs 116 and 248-250, supplying a direct reason to use Combs's sequence without changing either reference's principle of operation.
Claims 106 and 107 recite “methods of installing/servicing a module associated with a life sciences laboratory workstation, respectively, the method comprising:” (Yamashita discloses installing tip rack 7 in automated analyzing device 1 by loading the rack on open drawer 21, closing the drawer, and raising and positioning the rack. See paragraphs 107-116 and 195-196; Figures 3-6 and 10A-12C);
“positioning at least a portion of at least one rail to extend outside the laboratory workstation" (Yamashita teaches opening drawer 21 extends the movable portions of rails 35 through front-face opening 20 while the fixed rail portions remain inside housing 33. This positions part of the rail assembly outside the applied workstation boundary, see paragraphs 104, 107-109, and 123; Figures 3, 4, 7, and 10A);
“disposing the module on the at least one rail at a first position that is at least partially outside of the laboratory workstation; (Yamashita teaches a rack 7 is placed on table 24 of rail-supported open drawer 21 outside housing 33. The support on table 24 and drawer 21, which are guided by rails 35, disposed the rack on the rail, see paragraphs 107-109 and 115; Figures 4, 5, and 10A);
“moving the module from the first position to a second position within the laboratory workstation via the at least one rail positioned within the laboratory workstation;” (Yamashita teaches closing drawer 21 carries rack 7 through opening 20 into housing 33 along rails 35. The fixed portions of rails 35 remain inside the housing while the movable portions guide drawer 21. This is movement from the outside loading position to an inside position via the rail assembly, see paragraphs 109-110, 123, and 195 and Figures 10A-12C). As discussed above, Yamashita does not explicitly teach “transferring the module from the at least one rail to an actuator platform located within the laboratory workstation.
Combs teaches “transferring the module from the at least one rail to an actuator platform located within the laboratory workstation; (Combs positions lift platform 180 beneath carrier 300 in loading drawer 280, raises the platform with transport elevator 210, and lifts the carrier off the drawer and clears locator pins 288 and 294. See paragraphs 223-225 and Figures 7, 8. 15, 16, and 20). Applied at Yamashita's closed-drawer endpoint, that sequence transfers rack 7 from the rail-guided drawer to the internal lift platform.
“causing the actuator platform to position the module at a predetermined position within the laboratory workstation and servicing the module”, (Combs moves the lifted carrier to holding shelf 104, lowers it until locator pins 110 and 111 enter locator hole 340 and locator slot 342, and leaves it accurately positioned on the shelf. The shelf-locating sequence is positioning at a predetermined internal position, see paragraphs 166-169 and 221-222 and Figures 4A, 11, 15-16, and 20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing of the claimed invention to add Combs's lift-platform transfer to Yamashita's rail-guided loading endpoint so the module is removed from the drawer mechanism and placed reproducibly on a fixed workstation mount.
Both references concern automated laboratory equipment and use a user-accessible loading drawer to introduce a laboratory unit into an enclosure. Yamashita seeks accurate positioning isolated from drawer vibration, and Combs provides lift-off, controlled internal transport, locator engagement, and load release for that same purpose. It would have been obvious to place the outside the laboratory workstation to access the module (i.e., service the module). The mechanisms are technically compatible, the modification does not change Yamashita's rack-loading function, neither reference teaches away, and use of the known transfer sequence would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 85 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Barber (US 3771849; “Barber”).
Claim 85 recites “wherein the at least one rail is removable from the laboratory workstation”. Yamashita does not expressly state that rails 35 are removable. Barber discloses drawer-slide rails 12 and 14 and a quick-disconnect mounting in which bayonet clips 30 and 50 releasably engage slots 38 and 52 in cabinet frame 40. The rail is removed by lifting to disengage clip 50 and pulling outward to disengage clip 30, See column 2, lines 12-23; Figures 1-3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effectively filing date of the claimed invention to mount Yamashita's drawer rail 35 with Barber's releasable connection to permit cleaning, replacement, and unobstructed service access while retaining positive rail location during operation. Barber is reasonably pertinent to mounting a drawer rail in an enclosure, and its quick-disconnect mounting would predictably perform the same function without changing Yamashita's rail-guided loading operation.
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, the examiner considers the listed prior art relevant to the applicant’s invention and may be relied upon in a future prior art rejection or as general background information related to applicant’s field of endeavor.
a. Habrich et al., (US 20140287515) teach a laboratory module for storing and providing access to a plurality of samples, the laboratory module comprising a plurality of bays comprising a plurality of guiding rails and a plurality of rack tray bays for accommodating a plurality of rack trays, and a transport chamber for transporting at least one sample rack to a storage location and for delivering at least one sample rack at predetermined times to a processing system. The transport chamber is adapted to align with any one of the plurality of guiding rails, comprised in the bays and in the rack trays, for placing and moving on the guiding rails the at least one sample rack.
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
