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 .
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/04/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
As was explained in the Advisory action mailed on 11/18/2025, applicants improperly shifted the claimed invention in the after-final amendments filed on 10/15/2025 because applicants, while adding new limitations, also removed the recitations of the ‘mounting platform’ previously required by the claim language. The general policy of the Office is that applicants are not permitted to shift to claim another invention after an election is made and an Office action on the merits is made on the elected invention. The applicant cannot, as a matter of right, file a request for continued examination (RCE) on claims that are independent and distinct from the claims previously claimed and examined (i.e., applicant cannot switch inventions by way of an RCE as a matter of right). See MPEP $ 706.07(h). In order to advance prosecution and as a one-time courtesy, the amended apparatus claims in question [previously elected without traverse] will be further examined on the merits as presented below.
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 -6 and 8-15, as amended, 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.
In the amended claim 1, it is unclear from the claim language whether or not the conditional clause, ‘in a case when an evaluation liquid is fed..’, means that the data processing unit must be further coupled to some means for feeding the liquid and programmed accordingly’.
In the amended claim 3, it is unclear how the ‘optical filter’ and the ‘light receiving section for receiving’ must be structurally inter-related to the components recited in the preceding claims.
In the amended claim 5, it is unclear from the claim language what structural features must provide for the intended functionality as recited. See other dependent claims for the same issue.
In the amended claim 6, the ‘time change in a leakage amount’ is unclear.
In the amended claims 8-10, it is unclear whether the claim language attempts to re-define the configuration of the data processing unit as set forth in claim 1. “Further programmed’ language may resolve the issue.
In the amended claim 11, it is unclear how the ‘output control unit’ must be inter-related with the ‘data processing unit’ of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. .103 (a) as being unpatentable over Wilding et al., [US 20050079634].
As to claims 1-2, 4-6. Wilding discloses measurement apparatus systems configured for bio-assays involving cell culture growth, the apparatus system comprising, as shown in Figures 2-4 and 20, flow channel device 10 that includes first and second flow channels 16A, 16B with a communicating portion of the second flow channel that communicates with at least a part of the first flow channel; cell sheet 40
partitioning between the first and second flow channels, in which a plurality of cultured cells can be accommodated as recited; the apparatus system further comprising a measurement device that includes, as shown in Figure 20, optical detection unit 70 with at least one light source, capable to function as recited.
Although Wilding does not expressly teach the data processing unit configured as recited in the amended claims 1, Wilding, on the other hand, explains in [0004] that microprocessor-controlled optical detectors [such as laser photometers] are well known in the art. It would have been clearly within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Wilding by having employed such automatic data processors, in order to facilitate collection and analysis of optical detection signals and to improve the precision of measurements.
As to claim 15, , Figure 5 shows pump 52 [‘supply mechanism’].
It is further maintained that the features not positively recited as part of the claimed apparatus [such as the ‘evaluation’ liquid’ the tracers, the optical filter, the light receiving section, or the support/ membrane], with all associated details, are not accorded patentable weight when evaluated for patentability
Drawings
. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, as well as any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention. Therefore, the ‘communicating portion, configured as recited, must be clearly shown and properly referenced as such, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Response to Arguments
All of the Applicant s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Natalia Levkovich whose telephone number is (571)272-2462. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 2.00 pm-10:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jill A Warden can be reached on 571-272-1267. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATALIA LEVKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798