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 .
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.
Background
The Amendments to the Specification, the Amendments to the Drawings, and the Amendments to the Claims in the Applicant’s First Preliminary Amendment, filed on 10/07/24, and the Amendments to the Specification in the Applicant’s Second Preliminary Amendment, filed on 06/30/25, have been entered.
According to the Amendments, claims 1-27 were pending but have been canceled. Claims 28-52 have been added and are now pending.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 10-12, 16, 18, 21, 23 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,117,459. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the claimed invention is fully disclosed by the subject matter in the reference as shown in the table below.
The mapping of claims 1-8, 10-17, 19, and 20 of the present application to claims 1-4, 10-12, 16, 18, 21, 23 and 24 of US Pat. No. 12,117,459 is as follows:
Instant Application
Reference
1. An automated laboratory system for liquid handling, comprising: (i) a workspace, comprising: fiducial markers forming a 2D coordinate system; rover component that can navigate freely across the 2D coordinate system; a plurality of vertically arranged levels; an elevator to raise and lower the rover component to each of the plurality of vertically arranged levels; a labware component within the workspace that comprises an RFID tag; and a laboratory technique of a pipetting operation; (ii) the rover component within the workspace, comprising an RFID reader configured to read the RFID tag on the labware component; one or more cameras, wherein the one or more cameras is used to identify a location of the rover component within the workspace by identification of the fiducial markers in the workspace; an omni-wheel based drivetrain capable of moving in any direction without turning around; a labware component carrier platform with capacitive sensing regions to sense presence of the labware component positioned on the labware component carrier platform; and a spatula mechanism that is adapted to transfer the labware component from the rover component to a location within the workspace; (iii) a fleet controller to command the rover component within the workspace to engage the labware component for the laboratory technique of the pipetting operation.
1. A rover-based laboratory integrated system for labware component handling, comprising: a workspace comprising a fleet controller, a communications interface, an elevator platform and an elevator; a laboratory component within the workspace, the laboratory component being adapted to perform a laboratory technique; a labware component within the workspace that is adapted to be used in the laboratory technique; and a plurality of rover components in communication with the fleet controller through the communications interface within the workspace that is operatively connected to the laboratory and the labware components, wherein the workspace is adapted with the elevator platform and the elevator to lift and lower each of the rover components within the workspace, and each of the rover components being an autonomous mobile robot comprising a labware component carrier platform with capacitive sensing regions, wherein the capacitive sensing regions use a capacitance detection algorithm and capacitive sensing electrodes located in the labware component and the labware carrier platform to sense a presence or absence of a labware component positioned on the labware component carrier platform.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the labware component comprises a liquid handler device.
2. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 1, wherein the laboratory component comprises a liquid handler device, and wherein the laboratory technique includes a pipetting operation.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the liquid handler device is a multi-channel liquid handler with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each channel.
3. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 2, wherein the liquid handler device is a multi-channel liquid handler with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each of the channels.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the liquid handler device is an 8-channel liquid handler with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each of the 8 channels.
4. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 3, wherein the liquid handler device is an 8-channel liquid handler with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each of the 8 channels.
5. The system of claim 1, further comprising the spatula mechanism providing vertical movement as a slideable spatula mechanism.
10. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 1, wherein the autonomous mobile robot comprises a labware component transfer mechanism.
11. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 10, wherein the labware component transfer mechanism comprises a spatula mechanism that is adapted to transfer the labware component from the autonomous mobile robot to a location within the workspace.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the rover component with the omni-wheel based drivetrain is configured with an S-curve velocity motion profile.
12. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 1, wherein the autonomous mobile robot is adapted to move within the workspace using an S-curve velocity motion profile.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein lab instruments may be placed freely in the workspace.
1. A rover-based laboratory integrated system for labware component handling, comprising: a workspace comprising a fleet controller, a communications interface, an elevator platform and an elevator; a laboratory component within the workspace …
8. The system of claim 1, further comprising control software on the fleet controller that schedules tasks for a variety of workflows occurring within the workspace, including a cell culture experiment task.
16. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of rover components is in wireless communication with the fleet controller, and wherein the fleet controller commands each of the plurality of rover component to execute tasks of a workflow.
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the labware component carrier platform on the rover component comprises a weigh scale.
18. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of rover components comprises a labware component carrier platform with a weigh scale.
11. A method for an automated laboratory for liquid handling, comprising: (i) providing a workspace, comprising: fiducial markers forming a 2D coordinate system; an rover component that can navigate freely across the 2D coordinate system; a plurality of vertically arranged levels; an elevator to raise and lower the rover component to each of the plurality of vertically arranged levels; a labware component within the workspace that comprises an RFID tag; and a laboratory technique of a pipetting operation; (ii) engaging the rover component within the workspace, comprising: an RFID reader configured to read the RFID tag on the labware component; one or more cameras, wherein the one or more cameras is used to identify a location of the rover component within the workspace by identification of the fiducial markers in the workspace; an omni-wheel based drivetrain capable of moving in any direction without turning around; a labware component carrier platform with capacitive sensing regions to sense presence of the labware component positioned on the labware component carrier platform; and a spatula mechanism that is adapted to transfer the labware component from the rover component to a location within the workspace; (iii) commanding with a fleet controller the rover component within the workspace through wireless communication to perform the laboratory technique of the pipetting operation.
21. A method for integrating a laboratory system comprising the steps of: providing a laboratory integrated system described in claim 1; programming a protocol for the laboratory technique using the fleet controller; and commanding each of the plurality of rover components with the fleet controller to execute the protocol.
1. A rover-based laboratory integrated system for labware component handling, comprising: a workspace comprising a fleet controller, a communications interface, an elevator platform and an elevator; a laboratory component within the workspace, the laboratory component being adapted to perform a laboratory technique; a labware component within the workspace that is adapted to be used in the laboratory technique; and a plurality of rover components in communication with the fleet controller through the communications interface within the workspace that is operatively connected to the laboratory and the labware components, wherein the workspace is adapted with the elevator platform and the elevator to lift and lower each of the rover components within the workspace, and each of the rover components being an autonomous mobile robot comprising a labware component carrier platform with capacitive sensing regions, wherein the capacitive sensing regions use a capacitance detection algorithm and capacitive sensing electrodes located in the labware component and the labware carrier platform to sense a presence or absence of a labware component positioned on the labware component carrier platform.
12. The method of claim 11, wherein the labware component comprises a liquid handler device.
2. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 1, wherein the laboratory component comprises a liquid handler device, and wherein the laboratory technique includes a pipetting operation.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the liquid handler device is a multi-channel liquid handler with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each channel.
3. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 2, wherein the liquid handler device is a multi-channel liquid handler with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each of the channels.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the liquid handler device is an 8-channel liquid handler with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each of the 8 channels.
4. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 3, wherein the liquid handler device is an 8-channel liquid handler with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each of the 8 channels.
15. The method of claim 11, further comprising the spatula mechanism providing vertical movement as a slideable spatula mechanism.
10. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 1, wherein the autonomous mobile robot comprises a labware component transfer mechanism.
11. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 10, wherein the labware component transfer mechanism comprises a spatula mechanism that is adapted to transfer the labware component from the autonomous mobile robot to a location within the workspace.
16. The method of claim 11, wherein the rover component with the omni-wheel based drivetrain is configured with an S-curve velocity motion profile.
23. The method as in claim 22, further comprising navigating the autonomous mobile robot freely within the workspace using the map.
24. The method as in claim 23, wherein the autonomous mobile robot navigates within the workspace using an S-curve velocity motion profile.
17. The method of claim 11, wherein lab instruments may be placed freely in the workspace.
1. A rover-based laboratory integrated system for labware component handling, comprising: a workspace comprising a fleet controller, a communications interface, an elevator platform and an elevator; a laboratory component within the workspace …
19. The method of claim 11, further comprising scheduling tasks on control software on the fleet controller that schedules tasks for a variety of workflows occurring within the workspace, including a cell culture experiment task.
16. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 15, wherein each of the plurality of rover components is in wireless communication with the fleet controller, and wherein the fleet controller commands each of the plurality of rover component to execute tasks of a workflow.
20. The method of claim 11, wherein the labware component carrier platform on the rover component comprises a weigh scale.
18. The laboratory integrated system as in claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of rover components comprises a labware component carrier platform with a weigh scale.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ capacitive sensing regions to sense presence of the labware component positioned on the labware component carrier platform” and “a spatula mechanism that is adapted to transfer the labware component from the rover component to a location within the workspace” in claims 1 and 11; and “a slideable spatula mechanism” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under § 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. At the outset, it is noted that the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
Specifically, claim 1 is rejected under § 112(b), as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: (1) the workspace and the two dimensional (2D) coordinate system of fiducial marker; and (2) the workspace and the plurality of vertically arranged levels. In regards to the workspace and the 2D coordinate system, the claim fails to specify whether the fiducial markers are disposed on the workspace walls or floors. One can only assume that the markers are disposed on the floor so as to allow the rover component to travel across the workspace area. However, there is no mention of the 2D coordinate system being applied to any of the plurality of vertically arranged levels where the rover component also travels. In regards to the workspace and the plurality of vertically arranged levels, the claim fails to specify what structure the plurality of levels constitute. One can only assume that the plurality of levels refer to a multilevel storage structure with aisles for the rover component to travel to and from different workstations or locations within the structure. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under § 112(b) for indefiniteness. Claims 2-10 are indefinite as they depend from claim 1.
Furthermore, claim 1 is further indefinite for attempting to define a structural limitation in terms of a technique performed therein. In particular, claim 1 is on “an automated laboratory system for liquid handling, comprising: a workspace, comprising … a laboratory technique of a pipetting operation.” It is unclear how the performance of a laboratory technique further defines the structure of the workspace. Thus, claim 1 is indefinite.
Moreover, claim 1 is further indefinite for attempting to define a structural limitation in terms of various components where each one of the various components should be a separate element of the claimed system. For instance, claim 1 recites a system comprising “a workspace, comprising … rover component that can navigate freely across the 2D coordinate system [and] a labware component within the workspace that comprises an RFID tag. It is unclear how a rover component and a labware component are integral parts of a three dimensional space. While it is not uncommon for such components to be located in a workspace, such components are not typically considered separate elements of such a claim. Thus, claim 1 is indefinite.
For the aforementioned reasons, independent claim 11 is also rejected under § 112(b) for lack of indefiniteness as well as claims 12-20 which depend therefrom.
Additionally, the claim limitation “capacitive sensing regions to sense presence of the labware component positioned on the labware component carrier platform” and the claim limitation “a spatula mechanism that is adapted to transfer the labware component from the rover component to a location within the workspace” in claims 1 and 11 as well as the claim limitation “a slideable spatula mechanism” in claim 15 invoke § 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, claims 1, 11, and 15 are indefinite and rejected under § 112(b).
The Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If the Applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under § 103 as being obvious over US Pub. No. 2017/0217027 to Boucard (Boucard) in view of US Pub No. 2017/0364074 to Lau et al. (Lau) and further in view of US Pat. No. 9,381,524 to Bailey et al. (Bailey). In regards to claims 1 and 11, Boucard discloses an automated laboratory system for liquid handling and method of using the same, said system comprising:
(i) a workspace (100), comprising:
fiducial markers forming a 2D coordinate system (see ¶ [0035] for providing computer readable floor patterns and QR codes forming a 2D coordinate system enabling robot navigation);
rover component (102) that can navigate freely across the 2D coordinate system (see [0031], [0033], [0038]);
a labware component (114) within the workspace that comprises an RFID tag (see ¶ [0031]); and
(ii) the rover component within the workspace, comprising
an RFID reader configured to read the RFID tag on the labware component (see ¶ [0038] for providing RFID chips for system components and an RFID reader for robot);
one or more cameras, wherein the one or more cameras is used to identify a location of the rover component within the workspace by identification of the fiducial markers in the workspace (see ¶ [0035] for providing a plurality of cameras directed towards floor patterns and QR codes so as to enable robots to determines their location on the workspace floor);
an omni-wheel based drivetrain capable of moving in any direction without turning around (see ¶¶ [0042], [0046] (describing a set of wheels, each of which is omnidirectional);
(iii) a fleet controller (222) to command the rover component within the workspace to engage the labware component for the laboratory technique of the pipetting operation (see ¶¶ [0007], [0036] (providing a controller configured to control robot tasks).
Although Boucard does not explicitly disclose vertically arranged levels with an elevator, such features are found in the prior art. In fact, Lau teaches a mobile robotic delivery system for handling delivery items in a wide variety of environments, the system comprising:
a plurality of vertically arranged levels (see ¶ [0053] describing a multi-level building wherein transport robots operate);
an elevator (1012) to raise and lower the rover component to each of the plurality of vertically arranged levels (see ¶¶ [0094], [0096] for enabling robots to use elevators to travel between floors in a multi-level building during storage and retrieval operations); and
a labware component carrier platform with capacitive sensing regions to sense presence of the labware component positioned on the labware component carrier platform (see ¶ [0028] determining an item has been received on the robot by sensing the presence of the item at a storage location on the robot using an optical sensor, weight sensor, or pressure sensor).
Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Boucard with the elevators and multilevels of Lau in order to navigate autonomously throughout an expanded multi-level workspace while fetching and delivering items upon request.
Furthermore, although Boucard in view of Lau does not explicitly disclose this limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Bailey teaches an automated biological processing apparatus wherein the labware component transfer mechanism (105) comprises a spatula mechanism (104) that is adapted to transfer the labware component from the rover component to a location within the workspace. See Fig. 19 and 8:6-7 (providing a first transport mechanism with a spatula).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify the transfer mechanism of Boucard in view of Lau with spatula end effector of Bailey in order to make use of a known mechanism for handling lab sample trays.
In regards to claims 5 and 15, Bailey further discloses that the spatula mechanism providing vertical movement as a slideable spatula mechanism. See col. 8:6-22.
In regards to claims 7 and 17, Boucard further discloses that lab instruments may be placed freely in the workspace. See ¶¶ [0003] & [0032].
In regards to claims 10 and 20, Lau further discloses that the labware component carrier platform on the rover component comprises a weigh scale. See ¶ [0031] (determining an item has been received on the robot by sensing the presence of the item at a storage location on the robot using an optical sensor, weight sensor, or pressure sensor).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected under § 103 as being unpatentable over Boucard in view of Lau and Bailey, supra, as applied to claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13 respectively, and further in view of US Pub. No. 2005/0058573 to Frost (Frost). In regards to claim 2, Boucard in view of Lau and Bailey discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for a liquid handler device.
Although Boucard in view of Lau and Bailey does not explicitly disclose this limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Frost teaches a robotic workstation comprising a laboratory component in the form of a liquid handler device wherein the laboratory technique includes a pipetting operation. See ¶ [0015] (describing variable span pipette end effector for use in a research lab).
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify Boucard in view of Lau and Bailey with the pipette end effector of Frost in order to automate liquid sample preparation prior to DNA sequencing.
In regards to claim 3, Frost further discloses that the liquid handler device is a multi-channel liquid handler (40C) with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each of the channels. See Fig. 7 and ¶ [0038].
In regards to claim 4, Frost further discloses that the liquid handler device is an 8-channel liquid handler (40C) with independent spanning and independent Z-actuation on each of the 8 channels. See Fig. 7 and ¶ [0038]
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boucard in view of Lau and Bailey, supra, as applied to claim 1 and 11, and further in view of a reference entitled “Optimizing S-curve Velocity for Motion Control” to Li (Li) (submitted with IDS). For both claims, Boucard in view of Lau and Bailey discloses all limitations of the claimed invention but for S-curve velocity motion.
Although Boucard in view of Lau and Bailey does not explicitly disclose this limitation, such a feature is found in the prior art. In fact, Li teaches a motion control algorithm comprising an optimized S-curve velocity motion profile for moving mobile robots within a workspace. See Abstract.
Thus, it would have been obvious at the time of the invention to modify Boucard in view of Lau and Bailey with the motion control feature of Li in order to eliminate jerky motion so that samples are transported smoothly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under § 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
US Pub. No. 2002/0146347 to McNeil discloses a system and method for positioning a sample, or cargo, with respect to a device in a robotic system is provided. The system includes a macro positioning system for "gross" movement of the sample between stations and a micro positioning system for precisely locating the sample in a predetermined location at a station with respect to a device that will interact with the sample. The macro positioning system provides a positioning mechanism for the general movement of a sample along a pathway between various destinations or stations wherein the sample is "grossly" positioned with respect to the station. Once at the station, the micro positioning subsystem disposed between a sample carrier and the station provides a positioning mechanism for "precisely" positioning the sample in a predetermined location at the station with respect to a device that will interact with, or perform some function on, the sample. The system and method provide for multiple sample carrying robots having autonomous navigation thereby providing flexibility and stacker-like queuing for near 100% device utilization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE LOGAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-7769. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 PM.
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, JACOB SCOTT can be reached at (571) 270-3415. 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.
/KYLE O LOGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Prosecution Insights