DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 6-7 and 9 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. For purposes of examination, claims 6-7 and 9 have been treated as depending from claim 5.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "said second compartment (3) is hingeably attached to said third compartment (2)." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "said first compartment (4) and said second compartment (3)." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said third compartment (2)." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1-3, 14-15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich et al. (20160231345) in view of Friedlander (20110262320).
Regarding claim 1, Merzenich discloses a digital burette (Fig. 3) comprising: a housing (110) configured to be mounted on a liquid reservoir (200); a tube (156) extending from said housing, wherein an operative first end of said tube is configured to fluidly communicate with said liquid reservoir (par. 0073), and an operative second end of said tube is configured to dispense the liquid (par. 0073); an input unit, said input unit configured to receive an input corresponding with a desired volume of the liquid to be dispensed (par. 0130), and further configured to generate an input signal; a control unit (300), said control unit configured to cooperate with said input unit to receive said input signal, said control unit further to generate a processed signal based on said received signal; and an actuating means (154) connected with said control unit to receive said processed signal, said actuating means further configured to cooperate with said tube to facilitate dispensation of the desired volume of the liquid through said tube (par. 0073).
Merzenich DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the input unit is provided on said housing and the control unit is provided in said housing. Attention, however, is directed to the Friedlander reference, which discloses an input unit (9) is provided on a housing (2) and a control unit (60) is provided in said housing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Merzenich reference in view of the teachings of the Friedlander reference by providing the input unit on the housing and providing the control unit in the housing for the purpose of achieving a compact design.
Regarding claim 2, said control unit includes: a repository (par. 0092 and 0130 of Merzenich; 6 of Friedlander) configured to store a list of values of input and a list of values of rotational speed corresponding to said list of input values; and a processor (600 of Merzenich; par. 0027 of Friedlander) communicatively coupled to said repository, said processor configured to receive said input signal and convert said input signal to an value, and further configured extract the value of rotational speed corresponding to said input value of displacement from said repository to generate said processed signal based on said extracted value.
Regarding claim 3, said actuating means is a peristaltic pump (14 of Friedlander) having a plurality of rollers configured to periodically abut said tube in an operative configuration thereof to compress and decompress said tube and aspirate the liquid from the reservoir and dispense it.
Regarding claim 14, Merzenich discloses a digital burette (Fig. 3) comprising: a housing (110) configured to be mounted on a liquid reservoir (200); a tube (156) extending from said housing, wherein an operative first end of said tube is configured to fluidly communicate with said liquid reservoir (par. 0073), and an operative second end of said tube is configured to dispense the liquid (par. 0073); an input unit, said input unit configured to receive an input corresponding with a desired volume of the liquid to be dispensed (par. 0130), and further configured to generate an input signal; and an actuating means (154) connected to said input unit, said actuating means configured to receive said input signal, said actuating means further configured to cooperate with said tube to facilitate dispensation of the desired volume of the liquid through said tube based on said input signal (par. 0073).
Merzenich DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the input unit is provided on said housing. Attention, however, is directed to the Friedlander reference, which discloses an input unit (9) is provided on a housing (2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Merzenich reference in view of the teachings of the Friedlander reference by providing the input unit on the housing for the purpose of achieving a compact design.
Regarding claim 15, said actuating means is a peristaltic pump (14 of Friedlander) having a plurality of rollers configured to periodically abut said tube in an operative configuration thereof to compress and decompress said tube and aspirate the liquid from the reservoir and dispense it.
Regarding claim 18, a display unit (8 of Friedlander) located on said housing, said display unit being communicatively coupled to said input unit to receive said input signal to display the value of the desired volume of liquid.
Claim(s) 4 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich et al. in view of Friedlander as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Tisone (5916524).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Merzenich DIFFERS in that it does not disclose said actuating means includes a stepper motor configured to be connected to said rollers, and further configured to cooperate with said control unit to receive said processed signal therefrom to facilitate rotation of said rollers at said extracted rotational speed to ensure precise dispensation of the liquid in increments, ranging from 0.01 mL to 0.1 mL per dispensation. Attention, however, is directed to the Tisone reference, which discloses said actuating means includes a stepper motor configured to be connected to said rollers, and further configured to cooperate with said control unit to receive said processed signal therefrom to facilitate rotation of said rollers at said extracted rotational speed to ensure precise dispensation of the liquid in increments, ranging from 0.01 mL to 0.1 mL per dispensation (col. 9, lines 23-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Merzenich reference in view of the teachings of the Tisone reference by using a stepper motor for the purpose of precisely regulating the amount and/or flow rate of the liquid.
Claim(s) 12 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich et al. in view of Friedlander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bittner (3182692).
Regarding claims 12 and 22, Merzenich DIFFERS in that it does not disclose silicon. Attention, however, is directed to the Bittner reference, which discloses silicon (col. 3, lines 11-13).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Merzenich reference in view of the teachings of the Bittner reference by using silicon because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 13 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merzenich et al. in view of Friedlander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Farr (3273402).
Regarding claims 13 and 23, Merzenich DIFFERS in that it does not disclose polymer. Attention, however, is directed to the Farr reference, which discloses polymer (col. 3, lines 62-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Merzenich reference in view of the teachings of the Farr reference by using polymer because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (MPEP 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 10-11, 17, and 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 6-7 and 9 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, PAUL DURAND can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights