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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 “blocking device” (claim 5) 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3,4,7,13-16,19 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the sample support device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, for the purposes of this Action, the sample support device will be interpreted to mean the sample supply device.
Claim 3 recites “the reversing device has a pin”; however, further recites “wherein at least one of the reversing device and the pin”, which implies the reversing device and the pin are separate elements. Therefore, it is not clear if the pin is a part of the reversing device or they are separate elements. For the purposes of this Action, the claim will be interpreted such that the reversing device and the pin are not separate elements.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the conveyor wheel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
Claims 1,2,5-8,10-12,15,17,18, as best understood by the Examiner (see ¶3,4
above), are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guerra et al. USP 5,860,563.
Guerra discloses, regarding claim 1, A sample supply device for supplying sample containers to an analyzer, comprising:
an alignment device (92,94,104a,104b) for aligning a sample container (54,54a) in a predetermined orientation (see at least C4/L65-C5/L25); and
a dispensing device (110) for dispensing the sample container, wherein the dispensing device is preceded by the alignment device.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the alignment device has a reversing device (104a,104b) for selectively changing the orientation of the sample container with respect to its longitudinal axis (see at least C5/L12-25).
Regarding claim 5, further comprising a blocking device (112) for accomplishing at least one of blocking the reversing device and blocking the movement of the sample container (C5/L26-29).
Regarding claim 6, further comprising a dispensing sensor (114) associated with the dispensing device for detecting the dispensing of the sample container (see at least C5/L33-39).
Regarding claim 7, further comprising a filling device (20) for filling the sample support device with a plurality of sample containers.
Regarding claim 8, further comprising a separating device (80) for separating the sample containers.
Regarding claim 10, A sample supply method for supplying sample containers to an analyzer, comprising:
provision of a plurality of sample containers (54,54a);
separation of the sample containers (via separating device 80);
aligning a single sample container in a predetermined orientation (via aligning device 92,94,104a,104b), wherein the sample container is selectively inverted depending on its orientation with respect to its longitudinal axis (see at least C4/L65-C5/L25); and
dispensing the sample container (via dispensing device 110).
Regarding claims 11,12, wherein the sample containers have a crucible-shape (it is noted that the inclusion of the material worked upon does not impart patentability to the claims as discussed in MPEP 2115; however, the prior art is fully capable of handling sample containers having a crucible-shape).
Regarding claim 15, wherein the filling device (20) further comprises at least one of a funnel and a pouring ramp (see structure in fig.9).
Regarding claim 17, wherein the separating device further comprises a conveyor wheel (80).
Regarding claim 18, wherein the conveyor wheel further comprises a receptacle (102,102a) for sample containers.
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.
Claim 16, as best understood by the Examiner (see ¶3,4 above) is rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerra et al. USP 5,860,563 in view of Willenbring et al. USP 6,790,412.
Guerra discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶7 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claim 16.
Willenbring teaches the use of a filling level sensor (20) associated with a filling device (1).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a filling level sensor associated with the filling device, as taught by Willenbring, in the device of Guerra, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of warning the operator if the filling device needs to be refilled with sample containers (C7/L17-32).
Claims 9,19, as best understood by the Examiner (see ¶3,4 above), are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guerra et al. USP 5,860,563 in view of Blaha et al. USP 8,336,699.
Guerra discloses substantially all the limitations of the claims (see ¶7 above), but does not expressly disclose the limitations of claims 9,19.
Blaha teaches the use of a regulating device (38) for regulating a speed of the separating device, wherein the regulating device is configured to regulate a speed of the conveyor wheel (24) (C5/L41-46).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide a regulating device for regulating a speed of the separating device, wherein the regulating device is configured to regulate a speed of the conveyor wheel, as taught by Blaha, in the device of Guerra, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of regulating the number of articles dispensed in relation to the number of articles detected, thus evenly regulating flow of articles (C5/L41-46).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3,4,13,14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s)
under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirata et al. (USP 8,172,072) discloses a supply device comprising a bin (311), dispensing device (313) for dispensing a container (R) having a crucible-shape, wherein the dispensing device comprises a conveyor wheel (3131) (see at least fig.1,3,5).
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESLIE A. NICHOLSON III whose telephone number is (571)272-5487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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 C McCullough can be reached at 571-272-7805. 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.
/LESLIE A NICHOLSON III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3653 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights