DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Comment
This application is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/432,590 (now abandoned with no after-final response). All instant claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Pursuant to MPEP § 706.07(b), this action is made a first action final rejection. As mentioned in the attached search notes, a TQAS was consulted to confirm that a first action final rejection for the instant application is proper.
The only change in the claims of the instant application is the changing of “handling operation on the pipette” to “automated handling operation on the pipette” (subsequently in the claims referred to as “handling operation” and “automated handling operation”). In regards to the prior art, this was already explicitly addressed on the record in the response to arguments, incorporated herein by reference, and claim rejections in the final rejection of the parent application. Furthermore, the preamble of independent claims 1 and 11 of the parent application recited “automated pipette handling”. Claim 20 of the parent application was directed to “a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable code, the code comprising instructions executable by a processor one or more processors of a device to cause the device to…perform a handling operation on the pipette with a robot”. As such the instant claims are patentably indistinct from and have unity of invention with, the finally rejected claims of the parent. Lastly, the same grounds of rejection are used for the instant claims as was used in the final rejection of the parent application claims. As such, this action is made final.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17/432,590.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 7, 11, and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7: It is unclear if “a plurality of parameters” and the limitation of “wherein at least one of the plurality of parameters of the handling operation is varied” are the same elements as those similarly recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, they are interpreted as the same and claim 7 is interpreted as being redundant to the last section of claim 1.
Regarding claim 11: It is unclear if “a plurality of parameters” and the limitation of “configured to vary at least one of the plurality of parameters of the handling operation” are the same elements as those similarly recited in claim 8. For the purposes of examination, they are interpreted as the same and claim 7 is interpreted as being redundant to the last section of claim 8.
Regarding claim 20: It is unclear if “a plurality of parameters” and the limitation of “wherein at least one of the plurality of parameters of the handling operation is varied” are the same elements as those similarly recited in claim 14. For the purposes of examination, they are interpreted as the same and claim 20 is interpreted as being redundant to the last section of claim 14.
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 of this title, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohnsack et al. (WO 2017173380 A1, prior art of record via IDS and parent application) in view of Zucchelli et al. (US 20180056286 A1, prior art of record via parent application).Regarding claim 1:Bohnsack teaches ([0032]-[0036], [0050], [0059]-[0061]) a method for automated pipette handling, comprising:
identifying a pipette with an identifying device (e.g. [0032]-[0034], [0063], [0074]);
obtaining data relating to the pipette logged on a database from the database with a control unit ([0032]-[0035], [0074]);
performing an automated handling operation on the pipette with a robot ([0032]-[0035], [0050], [0053]);
obtaining data for the automated handling operation from one or more of the identifying device and the robot with the control unit ([0032]-[0035], [0053], [0068]),
wherein the control unit is configured to: process the data obtained in relation to the pipette and the data obtained for the automated handling operation, and compare the data obtained in relation to the pipette and the data obtained for the automated handling operation with existing historical data logged on the database (e.g. [0033], [0048]-[0050], [0055], [0066]);
logging the data obtained in relation to the pipette and the data obtained for the automated handling operation ([0032]-[0036], [0068], [0073]); and
controlling the automated handling operation with the control unit based on sending instructions to the robot that are based on the data relating to the pipette logged on the database, the data obtained for the handling operation logged on the database, and the existing historical data logged on the database ([0008], [0032]-[0036], [0054]),
wherein the data obtained for the automated handling operation comprises a plurality of parameters, and wherein, in the automated handling operation, at least one of the plurality of parameters of the automated handling operation is varied (e.g. [0050], [0054])Bohnsack fails to teach:
the at least one of the plurality of parameters being selected from the group comprising a temperature, a speed of displacement of the robot, a movement pattern of the robot, vibration patterns when handling the pipette, a force of a pressure applied on a plunger of the pipette, and a speed of the pressure applied on the plungerZucchelli teaches:
the at least one of the plurality of parameters being selected from the group comprising a temperature, a speed of displacement of the robot, a movement pattern of the robot, vibration patterns when handling the pipette, a force of a pressure applied on a plunger of the pipette ([0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0044], [0068]), and a speed of the pressure applied on the plunger ([0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0044], [0068])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a force of a pressure applied on a plunger of the pipette and/or a speed of the pressure applied on the plunger as a parameter to be varied during a pipette handling operation or calibration/verification, as taught by Zucchelli, in the method of Bohnsack to yield the improvement(s) of: improved mixing of liquids; improved precision of dispensing by improved reproducibility of displacement, speed, and pressure; and/or an improved detection of pipette stop(s) by pressure feedback mechanisms (Zucchellil – [0068]).
Regarding claim 2:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein an output from the controlling of the automated handling operation is predicted by the control unit based on one or more of the logged data obtained in relation to the pipette, the logged data obtained for the automated handling operation, and the logged historical data ([0034], [0060], [0066])
Regarding claim 3:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 2, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the control unit controls the automated handling operation based on the prediction ([0034], [0060], [0066])
Regarding claim 4:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the automated handling operation comprises a calibration or verification of the pipette ([0032]-[0035], [0072])
Regarding claim 5:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the automated handling operation comprises repetitive pipetting of the pipette (e.g. [0055], [0068])
Regarding claim 6:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the automated handling operation comprises characterizing an aspired liquid, a dispensed liquid, or both ([0036], [0050], [0055]-[0056], [0059]-[0060])
Regarding claim 7:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the automated handling operation comprises a plurality of parameters, wherein at least one of the plurality of parameters of the automated handling operation is varied (e.g. [0050], [0054])
Regarding claim 8:Bohnsack teaches a system for automated pipette handling comprising:
an identifying device configured to identify a pipette (e.g. [0032]-[0034], [0063], [0074]);
a robot being configured to perform an automated handling operation on the pipette (e.g. [0032]-[0036], [0050], [0053]); and a control unit (e.g. [0024], [0027], [0032]), wherein the control unit is configured to:
obtain data relating to the pipette from a database ([0032]-[0035], [0074]);
obtain identification data for the pipette from the identifying device (e.g. [0032]-[0035], [0063], [0074]),
obtain data relating to the automated handling operation from the robot ([0032]-[0035], [0053], [0068]);
process one or more of the data obtained in relation to the pipette and the data relating to the automated handling operation (e.g. [0033], [0048]-[0050], [0055], [0066]);
compare one or more of the data relating to the pipette and the data relating to the automated handling operation with existing historical data on the database (e.g. [0033], [0048]-[0050], [0055], [0066]);
log one or more of the data relating to the pipette and the data relating to the automated handling operation to the database ([0032]-[0036], [0068], [0073]); and
control the automated handling operation based on sending instructions to the robot that are based on one or more of the data relating to the pipette, the data relating to the automated handling operation, and the logged data ([0008], [0032]-[0036], [0054]),
wherein the data relating to the automated handling operation comprises a plurality of parameters, and wherein, in the automated handling operation, at least one of the plurality of parameters of the automated handling operation is varied (e.g. [0050], [0054])Bohnsack fails to teach:
the at least one of the plurality of parameters being selected from the group comprising a temperature, a speed of displacement of the robot, a movement pattern of the robot, vibration patterns when handling the pipette, a force of a pressure applied on a plunger of the pipette, and a speed of the pressure applied on the plungerZucchelli teaches:
the at least one of the plurality of parameters being selected from the group comprising a temperature, a speed of displacement of the robot, a movement pattern of the robot, vibration patterns when handling the pipette, a force of a pressure applied on a plunger of the pipette ([0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0044], [0068]), and a speed of the pressure applied on the plunger ([0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0044], [0068])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a force of a pressure applied on a plunger of the pipette and/or a speed of the pressure applied on the plunger as a parameter to be varied during a pipette handling operation or calibration/verification, as taught by Zucchelli, in the device of Bohnsack to yield the improvement(s) of: improved mixing of liquids; improved precision of dispensing by improved reproducibility of displacement, speed, and pressure; and/or an improved detection of pipette stop(s) by pressure feedback mechanisms (Zucchellil – [0068]).
Regarding claim 9:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein an output from the controlling of the automated handling operation is predicted by the control unit based on the logged data ([0034], [0060], [0066])
Regarding claim 10:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 9, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the control unit controls the automated handling operation based on the prediction ([0034], [0060], [0066])
Regarding claim 11:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the automated handling operation comprises a plurality of parameters, wherein the control unit is configured to vary at least one of the plurality of parameters of the automated handling operation (e.g. [0050], [0054])
Regarding claim 12:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the system comprises a sensor for measuring an environmental parameter and the control unit is further configured to obtain environmental data from the sensor, and wherein the instructions sent to the robot are based on the environmental data ([0059], [0074])
Regarding claim 13:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 8, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein at least the identifying device and the robot are placed in a controlled environment(The examiner notes that the instant limitation is broad. Laboratories may be interpreted as a controlled environment - [0002]-[0004])
Regarding claim 14:Bohnsack teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium comprising computer-readable code (e.g. [0027]-[0031]), the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors of a device to cause the device to:
identify a pipette with an identifying device (e.g. [0032]-[0034], [0063], [0074]);
obtain data relating to the pipette from a database ([0032]-[0035], [0074]) with a control unit (e.g. [0024], [0027]-[0032]);
perform an automated handling operation on the pipette with a robot ([0032]-[0035], [0050], [0053]);
obtain identification data for the pipette from the identifying device (e.g. [0032]-[0035], [0063], [0074]);
obtain data relating to the automated handling operation from the robot ([0032]-[0035], [0053], [0068]) with the control unit, wherein the control unit is configured to process one or more of the data relating to the pipette and the data relating to the automated handling operation (e.g. [0033], [0048]-[0050], [0055], [0066]), and wherein the processing comprises comparing one or more of the data relating to the pipette and the data relating to the automated handling operation with existing data on the database (e.g. [0033], [0048]-[0050], [0055], [0066]);
log one or more of the data relating to the pipette and the data relating to the automated handling operation ([0032]-[0036], [0068], [0073]); and
control the automated handling operation with the control unit based on sending instructions to the robot that are based on one or more of the data relating to the pipette, the data relating to the handling operation, and the logged data ([0008], [0032]-[0036], [0054]),
wherein the data relating to the automated handling operation comprises a plurality of parameters, and wherein, in the automated handling operation, at least one of the plurality of parameters of the automated handling operation is varied (e.g. [0050], [0054])Bohnsack fails to teach:
the at least one of the plurality of parameters being selected from the group comprising a temperature, a speed of displacement of the robot, a movement pattern of the robot, vibration patterns when handling the pipette, a force of a pressure applied on a plunger of the pipette, and a speed of the pressure applied on the plungerZucchelli teaches:
the at least one of the plurality of parameters being selected from the group comprising a temperature, a speed of displacement of the robot, a movement pattern of the robot, vibration patterns when handling the pipette, a force of a pressure applied on a plunger of the pipette ([0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0044], [0068]), and a speed of the pressure applied on the plunger ([0040]-[0041], [0043]-[0044], [0068])
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a force of a pressure applied on a plunger of the pipette and/or a speed of the pressure applied on the plunger as a parameter to be varied during a pipette handling operation or calibration/verification, as taught by Zucchelli, in the device of Bohnsack to yield the improvement(s) of: improved mixing of liquids; improved precision of dispensing by improved reproducibility of displacement, speed, and pressure; and/or an improved detection of pipette stop(s) by pressure feedback mechanisms (Zucchellil – [0068]).
Regarding claim 15:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 14, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein an output from the controlling of the automated handling operation is predicted by the control unit based on one or more of the data relating to the pipette, the data relating to the automated handling operation, and the logged data ([0034], [0060], [0066])
Regarding claim 16:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 15, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the control unit controls the automated handling operation based on the prediction ([0034], [0060], [0066])
Regarding claim 17:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 14, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the automated handling operation comprises a calibration or verification of the pipette ([0032]-[0035], [0072])
Regarding claim 18:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 14, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the automated handling operation comprises repetitive pipetting of the pipette (e.g. [0055], [0068])
Regarding claim 19:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 14, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the automated handling operation comprises instructions for characterizing an aspired liquid, a dispensed liquid, or both ([0036], [0050], [0055]-[0056], [0059]-[0060])
Regarding claim 20:Bohnsack and Zucchelli teach all the limitations of claim 14, as mentioned above.Bohnsack also teaches:
wherein the automated handling operation comprises a plurality of parameters, wherein at least one of the plurality of parameters of the automated handling operation is varied (e.g. [0050], [0054])
Conclusion
This is a continuation of applicant's earlier Application No. 17/432,590 (now abandoned with no after-final response). All claims are identical to, patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with the invention claimed in the earlier application (that is, restriction (including lack of unity) would not be proper) and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the earlier application. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action in this case. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights