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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 01/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-9 remain pending. Applicant’s amendment to Claim 1 overcomes the objections to Claim 1. Applicant’s amendment to the claims change the interpretation from 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation to broadest reasonable interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-9 based off this interpretation is withdrawn
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, See Page 7, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of Claims 1-9 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Claims 1-9 are amended to address the indefiniteness.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendment to the claims deletes the “comparison information provider that” but still leaves the rest of the limitation of “provide comparison information, of the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts of a same type of components that are used in the plurality of analysis devices and of a usable amount of the same type of component, and the reference value of the behavior information, produced based on the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts registered in the database”. That is, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of this limitation is not addressed by the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed 01/13/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-9 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 7-11, filed 01/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 7-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made in view of previously disclosed prior art Nakajima (US20150260742) in view of previously disclosed prior art Horie (JP2015102427A) and newly discovered prior art Utsunomiya (US20140078182). Utsunomiya teaches the amended limitation displaying a plurality of graphs in side by side orientation in Figures 6B, 12B, 15B, and 16, and [0004] further details the information being displayed and compared in the graphs.
Applicant argues on Page 10 that the cited reference combination does not disclose the limitations “compar[ing] and display[ing] the use amount, the behavior information piece, the usable amount, and the reference value of the same type of components provided in the plurality of analysis devices, wherein the usable amount and reference value relate to values within normal operating limits of the analysis device”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification of the instant application details in [0045] that Figure 5 shows the comparison information displayed on the monitor. Figure 5 details 4 graphs from 4 liquid chromatographs with use count vs retry count as the axes. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation, the presentation of data qualifies as presenting the data for comparison. Previously disclosed prior art Nakajima teaches the displaying of data with Figures 3-4 that encompasses multiple data values where Figure 3 data would qualify as the use amount and behavior information and Figure 4 data corresponds to the usable amount and reference values under broadest reasonable interpretation. Figures 5-7 detail displaying of data in the form of graphs. Thus Nakajima in view of Horie and newly discovered prior art Utsunomiya teaches the claimed limitations.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 is amended to detail “provide comparison information, of the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts of a same type of components that are used in the plurality of analysis devices and of a usable amount of the same type of component, and the reference value of the behavior information, produced based on the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts registered in the database”. Breaking down the limitation into parts based on the commas yields:
provide comparison information
comparison information of the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts of a same type of components that are used in the plurality of analysis devices
and of a usable amount of the same type of component
and the reference value of the behavior information
produced based on the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts registered in the database
It is not clear whether the amended limitations from (C) and (D) are to related to the comparison information of (A) or if they are to be related to the limitation of (B) of the use amounts and the behavior information pieces. That is, not clear what “of a usable amount of the same type of component” is in reference to with regards to the limitation that precedes it, and thus makes it unclear what “the reference value of the behavior information” is also in reference to. Examiner interprets limitation as “provides that provides comparison information produced based on the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts registered in the database, wherein the comparison information comprises:
a) the use amounts,
b) the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts of a same type of components that are used in the plurality of analysis device,
c) a usable amount of the same type of component, and
d) the reference value of the behavior information;”
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to dependence on claim 1.
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 1-2, 4-5 and 7-9 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US20150260742) in view of Horie (JP2015102427A) and Utsunomiya (US20140078182).
In regards to Claim 1, Nakajima teaches “a plurality of analysis devices (automatic analysis devices 1 – Figure 2); and
a server connected to the plurality of devices via a network (automatic analysis devices 1 connected by remote terminal 201 to servers 202, 203 by communication lines 205 and 206 – [0047], Figure 2), wherein
each analysis device includes a processor (automatic analysis device includes computer 117 – [0022]) configured to:
acquire a use amount and a behavior information piece associated with the use amount of a component attached to each analysis device (“The rack number reading device 123 and the specimen ID reading device 124 are disposed along the transportation line of the rack transportation device 103 . Incidentally, information having been read by the rack number reading device 123 and the specimen ID reading device 124 is input via the interface 118 to the computer 117” – [0024]; “The computer 117 converts the absorbance into the concentration of the component of the measuring object in the specimen, and creates data that is associated with information (rack number, specimen ID) having been read by the rack number reading device 123 and the specimen ID reading device 124 . The created data is printed out from the printer 120 via the interface 118 , displayed in a screen on the monitor 121 , and stored in the storage device 122” – [0038]; “The computer 117 of the automatic analysis device 100 in the present embodiment is configured to store and accumulate driving pulse values and consumed pulse quantities in the storage device 122 , recognizing a pulse quantity having been consumed [i.e. behavior information], on a driving pulse value for driving a pulse motor, during actual driving of the pulse motor as a consumed pulse quantity [i.e. use amount]. Further, remaining pulse quantities, each of which is obtained by subtracting a consumed pulse quantity from a driving pulse value, are also stored and accumulated in the storage device 122” – [0041]), and
transfer the use amount and the behavior information piece associated with the use amount acquired by the acquirer to the server (“In this situation, the computer 117 of an automatic analysis device 100 in the present embodiment functions as means for transmitting information [i.e. transfer use amount and the behavior information] of the driving pulse values, the consumed pulse quantities, and the remaining pulse quantities of a pulse motor stored and accumulated in the storage device 122 , to a maintenance support system 200 (a later described maintenance server 202 (see FIG. 2)) in the present embodiment via the interface 118 . Further, in addition to the information of the driving pulse values, the consumed pulse quantities, and the remaining pulse quantities, it is also possible to transmit the number of driving times and the failure state of the pulse motor” – [0043]), and
the server includes
register the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts received from the plurality of analysis devices in a database (“The maintenance server 202 is configured to be able to obtain and accumulate pulse information on pulse motors arranged for the respective mechanisms of an automatic analysis device 100 via the remote terminal 201 A or 201 B. Incidentally, a pulse information table 300 in which pulse information is accumulated will be described later, referring to FIG. 3” – [0053]; “Further, in case that the maintenance server 202 has received a notification of failure occurrence on a pulse motor arranged for the corresponding mechanism of an automatic analysis device 100 , the maintenance server 202 can compute the average values of various information of pulse motors at the times of failure occurrence and store the computed average values. Incidentally, a pulse motor average value table 400 at failure occurrence will be described later, referring to FIG. 4” – [0054]; “In the following, an example of a pulse information table 300 , in the maintenance server 202 , for accumulating pulse information will be described, referring to FIG. 3” – [0060]; “The pulse information table 300 for storing pulse information of pulse motors is, as shown in FIG. 3, formed with the automatic analysis device numbers 301 of automatic analysis devices 100 installed in respective inspection rooms, the mechanism numbers 302 of respective mechanisms configuring the automatic analysis devices 100 , the pulse motor numbers 303 of pulse motors configuring the mechanisms, and pulse information 305 for the respective numbers of driving times 304 of the pulse motors. The pulse information 305 is formed with driving pulse values, consumed pulse quantities, and remaining pulse quantities” – [0061]), and
provide comparison information, of the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts of a same type of components that are used in the plurality of analysis devices and of a usable amount of the same type of component, produced based on the use amounts and the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts registered in the database (“Further, the maintenance server 202 is configured to be able to determine whether or not a pulse motor, whose pulse information has been obtained, has a possibility of occurrence of failure, based on the pulse information table 300 (see FIG. 3) and the pulse motor average value table 400 (see FIG. 4). If the maintenance server 202 has determined a possibility of occurrence of failure, the maintenance server 202 can notify the user terminal 204 of this determination by a mail” – [0055]; Deviation rates from the average pulse quantities, i.e. usable amount, for detecting the possibility of failure occurrence of the pulse motor are stored – [0066]; “A possibility of failure occurrence is determined if the graph 505 has deviated from the graph 506 of plotted average consumed pulse quantities by a predetermined deviation rate (the average pulse quantity deviation rate 407 in FIG. 4) or more. Further, a possibility of failure occurrence is also determined if the graph 505 has approximated to the graph 507 representing the average at-failure pulse quantities 406 by a predetermined approximation rate (approximation rate to at-failure pulse quantity 408 in FIG. 4) or more. Incidentally, if a possibility of failure occurrence has been determined, for example, the display color of the graph 505 is changed for visual recognition of the possibility of a failure” – [0073]; Figures 3 and 4 along with [0055] and [0073] detail the comparison of the use amounts and behavior amounts of the automatic analysis devices in its determination of failure);
compare and display the use amount, the behavior information piece, the usable amount, and the reference value of the same type of components provided in the plurality of analysis devices (web server obtains the information 300 from the maintenance server, i.e. receiving, and is able to display a graph, screen displaying the states of the respective mechanisms, and a screen displaying the states of automatic analysis devices – [0057]-[0059]; screen is displayed on the user terminal 204 – [0067]; Figure 3 shows the information with each analysis device that is displayed, as the information is displayed for each device, this allows the information, i.e. use amount and behavior information, to be compared; Figure 4 shows further data table with further data included, i.e. usable amount and reference values; Figures 5-7 are examples of the screen displaying graphs and states);
wherein a plurality of graphs is displayed (Figure 5 shows the graph 505 showing consumed pulse quantities plotted for a corresponding individual driving pulse value 504 of a pulse motor 503 – [0069]; Figure 5 shows the graph 506 as a graph of average consumed pulse quantities – [0070]).”
Nakajima is silent with regards to the language of “provide comparison information, the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts of a same type of components that are used in the plurality of analysis devices and of the reference value of the behavior information, wherein the reference values relates to values within normal operating limits of the analysis device.”
Horie teaches “provide comparison information, the behavior information pieces associated with the use amounts of a same type of components that are used in the plurality of analysis devices and of the reference value of the behavior information, wherein the reference values relates to values within normal operating limits of the analysis device (automatic analyzer has a system where the pressure sensor detects the pressure waveform of the pressure data when the probe penetrates the lid and the probe status determination unit determines whether the probe needs to be replaced based on the determination indicators, the peak value of the pressure waveform obtained by the pressure sensor, and by monitoring the waveform during the time period and comparing it with a reference pressure waveform when the probe is normal, it is possible to determine whether the probe’s penetration performance has deteriorated – [0009]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakajima to incorporate the teaching of Horie to utilize comparison of values to reference values when operating under normal conditions. By performing a comparison to reference values when operating under normal operating conditions, this is an improvement to the evaluation of the of the system to determine whether maintenance operations are needed.
Nakajima in view of Horie are silent with regards to the language of “wherein a plurality of graphs is displayed for each of the plurality of analysis devices, showing the use amount, the behavior information piece, the usable amount, and the reference value as the comparison information, and the comparison information of the plurality analysis devices is displayed side by side.”
Utsunomiya teaches “wherein a plurality of graphs is displayed for each of the plurality of analysis devices, showing the use amount, the behavior information piece, the usable amount, and the reference value as the comparison information, and the comparison information of the plurality analysis devices is displayed side by side (“When it is necessary to examine an analysis result obtained by previously described analyzing systems or compare the results of analyses [i.e. use amount, behavior information piece, usable amount, reference value] performed on a plurality of samples, an analysis operator appropriately selects spectra, chromatograms or other kinds of graphs as needed and makes them shown on a screen so that the operator can closely examine the waveform of a portion in question of the graph or compare a plurality of waveform shapes. To allow such analytical work to be performed smoothly, conventional analyzing systems have the function of showing a plurality of windows on a monitor screen, with a chromatogram, mass spectrum or similar graph placed in each window, and allowing the analysis operator to appropriately change the size and position of each window so that the comparison of the graphs or other tasks can be easily performed.” – [0004]; Figures 6B, 12B, 15B, and 16 show the graphs displayed in a side by side relation).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakajima in view of Horie to incorporate the teaching of Utsunomiya to utilizing a display to display the analysis results in a comparison side by side view. Utilizing a display to display graphs of the analysis results is an improvement that yields predictable results to enhance the working efficiency and to prevent erroneous operation in the analysis devices.
In regards to Claim 2, Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Nakajima further teaches “wherein the processor of the server is configure to specify information in regard to a component (automatic analysis device with motor 1 to motor n – Figure 3; maintenance server 202 determines occurrence of failure by evaluation of the pulse quantities with respect to the averages – [0073]), the behavior information piece of which exceeds a reference value (“Further, a possibility of failure occurrence is also determined if the graph 505 has approximated to the graph 507 representing the average at-failure pulse quantities 406 by a predetermined approximation rate (approximation rate to at-failure pulse quantity 408 in FIG. 4) or more [i.e. reference value]” – [0073]), among the same type of components that are used in the plurality of analysis devices (automatic analysis device 1 of plurality of automatic analysis devices with plurality of pulse motors – Figure 3).”
In regards to Claim 4, Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Nakajima is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the use amount includes a use count of a first component; and the behavior information piece includes a retry count, of retries that have been conducted until the first component behaves normally, that is associated with the use count of the first component.”
Horie teaches “wherein the use amount includes a use count of a first component; and the behavior information piece includes a retry count, of retries that have been conducted until the first component behaves normally, that is associated with the use count of the first component (number of occurrences of abnormal descents is recorded in abnormal descent count 603 and if the probe passes through the rubber plug without detecting any abnormal descent, the acceleration data or pressure data at the time of penetrating the rubber plug is recorded and the number of times the rubber plug is inserted for each type of rubber plug is counted – [0038]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya to incorporate the further teaching of Horie to count the number of occurrences of abnormal descents and the numbers of times the rubber plug is inserted. By tracking the number of occurrences of abnormal descents and the count of the plug insertions, this is an improvement to the evaluation to when maintenance needs to be performed on the analysis equipment.
In regards to Claim 5, Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Nakajima further teaches “wherein the use amount includes a use count of a second component, and the behavior information piece includes electrical properties of the second component that is associated with the use count of the second component (“The computer 117 of the automatic analysis device 100 in the present embodiment is configured to store and accumulate driving pulse values and consumed pulse quantities in the storage device 122 , recognizing a pulse quantity having been consumed [i.e. use amount], on a driving pulse value for driving a pulse motor, during actual driving of the pulse motor as a consumed pulse quantity [i.e. behavior information]. Further, remaining pulse quantities, each of which is obtained by subtracting a consumed pulse quantity from a driving pulse value, are also stored and accumulated in the storage device 122” – [0041]; Figure 3A shows first component as motor no. 1, second component as motor No.2 and the driving pulse value, consumed pulse quantity, remaining pulse quantity).”
In regards to Claim 7, Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya discloses the claimed invention as detailed above in Claim 1. Nakajima further teaches “a receiver that receives the comparison information presented by the processor of the server (Figure 2 details the communication lines 206 connected between the web server 203, remote terminals 201, user terminal 204 to send and receive information between them – [0047]-[0049]); and a comparison information displayer that causes a monitor included in the computer to display the comparison information received by the receiver (web server obtains the information from the maintenance server and is able to display an screen – [0057]-[0059]; screen is displayed on the user terminal 204 – [0067]).”
In regards to Claim 8, Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya discloses the claimed invention as detailed above in Claim 1. Nakajima further teaches “a process of receiving the comparison information presented by the processor of the server; and a process of causing a monitor to display the received comparison information (web server obtains the information from the maintenance server, i.e. receiving, and is able to display a screen, i.e. monitor to display – [0057]-[0059]; screen is displayed on the user terminal 204 – [0067]).”
In regards to Claim 9, Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Nakajima is silent with regards to the language of “the reference value for the behavior information is the value of the behavior information allowed for a component operating normally within the usable amount”
Horie further teaches “the reference value for the behavior information is the value of the behavior information allowed for a component operating normally within the usable amount (automatic analyzer has a system where the pressure sensor detects the pressure waveform of the pressure data when the probe penetrates the lid and the probe status determination unit determines whether the probe needs to be replaced based on the determination indicators, the peak value of the pressure waveform obtained by the pressure sensor, and by monitoring the waveform during the time period and comparing it with a reference pressure waveform when the probe is normal, it is possible to determine whether the probe’s penetration performance has deteriorated – [0009]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya to incorporate the further teaching of Horie to utilize comparison of values to reference values when operating under normal conditions. By performing a comparison to reference values when operating under normal operating conditions, this is an improvement to the evaluation of the of the system to determine whether maintenance operations are needed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haga (US20120196374).
In regards to Claim 6, Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya discloses the claimed invention as detailed above. Nakajima in view of Horie is silent with regards to the language of “wherein the use amount includes a liquid sending amount of a pump, and the behavior information piece includes a mean pressure of the pump associated with the liquid sending amount of the pump.”
Haga teaches “wherein the use amount includes a liquid sending amount of a pump, and the behavior information piece includes a mean pressure of the pump associated with the liquid sending amount of the pump (storage section has a discharge operation amount data where the discharge operation amount data represents a correlation between an average pressure value and a discharge operation amount during liquid suction at a sample dispensing mechanism, with the discharge operation amount is from a relationship between an actual discharge amount from a dispensing probe and a discharge operation amount of a pressure generating means including a syringe pump – [0053]; pressures are measured by pressure sensor – [0054]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakajima in view of Horie and Utsunomiya to incorporate the teaching of Haga to storage the data relating to the pressure measured and the discharge amount. By monitoring and storing data associated with the amount liquid discharged and the pressure, this is an improvement to the operation of the analyzer and the accuracy of the analysis performed by the analyzer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857