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.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC 119 (a)-(d) to application JP2024-011742 filed 01/30/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. As such, the effective filing date of the application is 01/30/2024.
Joint Inventors
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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4 are now pending. Claim 1 has been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to the previously presented 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because amendments to the claim language have necessitated new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chau et al. (US 20200246976 A1), hereinafter Chau.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau et al. (US 20200246976 A1), hereinafter Chau in view of Izumi et al. (US 20140358282 A1), hereinafter Izumi.
Regarding claim 1, Chau discloses:
A pickup method for picking up an object having a recessed portion using a jig held by a robot (see at least Figure 4 which depicts a robot picking up a pipette.)
the method comprising:
inserting the jig into the recessed portion by the robot (see at least Fig. 4, which shows a robot inserting a jig into a recessed portion of a pipette);
detecting an end point for insertion of the jig into the recessed portion by using a force sensor of the robot (See at least [0037]: “Then, various Z-axis positions of the pipette assembly can be tried to determine whether the sensor can detect the tip at those positions. Those positions at which the sensor can detect the tip can be considered to be valid test locations. As an illustration, as depicted by the three frames (205, 207, 209) of FIG. 2B, the pipette assembly can initially be traveled to a low Z-axis position, such as a position where the tip is touching or nearly touching the deck. Subsequently, the pipette assembly can be raised.”)
and picking up the object by the robot by moving the jig in a direction opposite to a direction of the insertion of the jig into the recessed portion (see at least Fig. 4, which depicts the robot lifting the pipette.)
wherein detecting an end point for insertion of the jig into the recessed portion by using a force sensor of the robot comprises:
lowering the jig (see at least Fig. 4)
Chau does not explicitly disclose, but Izumi, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches:
determining whether a pressing force between the jig and the recessed portion detected by the force sensor becomes a threshold value or more (see at least [0100]: “Then, the second detection device 64 determines whether the force sensor 24 measures a force in excess of the force threshold 73 continuously for a predetermined period of time T (step S204). When the second detection device 64 determines that the force sensor 24 measures a force in excess of the force threshold 73 continuously for a predetermined period of time T (Yes at step S204), the second detection device 64 generates the detection information (step S205) and outputs the detection information to the operation control device 61.”)
detecting that the jig has reached the end point of insertion into the recessed portion when the pressing force becomes the threshold value or more (See at least [0102]: “When the force sensor 24 measures no force in excess of the force threshold 73 continuously for a predetermined period of time T (No at step S204), the operation control device 61 determines whether the insertion of the pipette 53 is completed (step S110), similarly to the processing shown in FIG. 6.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Chau with the force detection as taught by Izumi. This is because as stated by Izumi [0106]-[0110]: “The robot system highly accurately detects a state of contact that is adversely influential to the member moved together with the end effector if the member has this state of contact with the another member… With this configuration, even when the proper threshold changes due to a change in the work environment of the robot, the threshold is updated automatically to a proper threshold. This maintains superior accuracy of detection of contact between the nozzle of the pipette and the lid of the tube.”
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Chau and Izumi teaches:
The pickup method according to claim 1.
Chau further discloses wherein an inserting portion, which is a portion of the jig to be inserted into the recessed portion, is formed in a tapered shape with an outer diameter increasing from a distal end side of the jig toward a base end side (see at least Fig. 3A, pipette tip 307)
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Chau and Izumi teaches:
The pickup method according to claim 1.
Chau further teaches wherein the jig is a pipette (see at least Fig. 2B, which depicts the pipette attached to the robot end effector.)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chau and Izumi in view of Yamashita et al. (US 20060127282 A1), hereinafter Yamashita.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Chau and Izumi teaches:
The pickup method according to claim 1.
Chau does not explicitly disclose, but Yamashita, in an analogous field of endeavor teaches:
wherein the object is mainly formed of resin (See at least [0097]: “Since the resin composition exhibits excellent transfer properties and can be injection molded at a reduced injection pressure in a molten state during molding, the microproduct according to the embodiment of the invention may be applied to a micro resin pipette tip which can sample or dispense a biological substance, an organic substance, or an inorganic substance.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation for success, to combine the invention of Chau with the method of using resin pipettes as taught by Yamashita. This is because, as stated by Yamashita in [0097]-[0098]: “ Since the resin composition exhibits excellent transfer properties and can be injection molded at a reduced injection pressure in a molten state during molding, the microproduct according to the embodiment of the invention may be applied to a micro resin pipette tip which can sample or dispense a biological substance, an organic substance, or an inorganic substance. Since the injection pressure can be reduced by using the resin composition exhibiting excellent transfer properties, a pipette tip which can sample or dispense a minute or a small amount of biological substance, organic substance, or inorganic substance can be obtained.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ELIZABETH NELESKI whose telephone number is (571)272-6064. The examiner can normally be reached 10 - 6.
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, THOMAS WORDEN can be reached at (571) 272-4876. 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.
/JASON HOLLOWAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/E.R.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights