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 § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2001133466 to Shimizu in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication no. 2015129659 to Aoyagi et al. and U.S. Patent No. 4,965,049 to Lillig et al.
Shimizu teaches and automatic analyzer that performs qualitative and quantitative analysis of a liquid obtained by reaction of a sample and a reagent [0001] - [0002]. The automatic analyzer includes:
a reaction disk 5 that includes a plurality of reaction vessels for reaction of the sample with the reagent [0020];
a sample dispensing probe 16 that dispenses the sample to the reaction vessels on the reaction disk [0023];
a sample dispensing probe cleaning tank 23 that cleans an outer periphery of the sample dispensing probe after the sample is dispensed [0023];
a reagent dispensing probe that dispenses the reagent to the reaction vessels on the reaction disk [00210;
a reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank that cleans an outer periphery of the reagent dispensing probe after the reagent is dispensed [0022];
a cleaning mechanism that cleans the reaction vessels after measurement is completed (photometric system 13 [0021];
a water supply mechanism that supplies cleaning water to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism [0023];
Shimizu does not teach a control unit that, when the sample is not analyzed by the automatic analyzer and is in a standby state where the measurement of the sample is acceptable, executes a quasi-stop mode in which supply of the cleaning water supplied by the water supply mechanism is not completely stopped and a supply amount is controlled to be smaller than a supply amount during the measurement of the sample; and a third setting unit that selects whether to execute the quasi-stop mode, wherein the quasi-stop mode is a mode in which supply of the cleaning water to at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism is stopped, and supply of the cleaning water to one or more of the above is continued.
Aoyagi et al. teaches an automatic analysis device that “reduces the standby time of a user by promptly responding to an emergency specimen and also reduces running cost due to water, electric power, etc., arising when no measurement is conducted” (PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED).
This goal is achieved by stopping operation of a cleaning mechanism for the duration of a standby time (SOLUTION).
It would have been obvious to modify Shimizu by stopping operation of the cleaning of any one of the at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank during a standby time when any of such elements are not in use for purposes of reducing cost of cleaning water as taught by Aoyagi et al.
As to applicant’s third setting unit selecting whether to control the quasi-stop mode in which supply of the cleaning water to at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism is stopped, and supply of the cleaning water to one or more of the above is continued, as noted above the third setting unit is disclosed as being a “quasi-mode execution selection screen.”
In Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. it would have been obvious for an operator of the automatic analysis device to manually turn off the operation of the cleaning of any one of the at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank during a standby time when any of such elements are not in use for purposes of reducing cost of cleaning water when monitoring the overall operation.
As to the control unit being “configured” to, make a determination that the sample is not analyzed by the automatic analyzer and the automatic analyzer is in a standby state, in which a measurable state is maintained wherein the measurement of the sample is acceptable, and, based on the determination, to execute a quasi-stop mode in which supply of the cleaning water supplied by the water supply mechanism to at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism is reduced but not completely stopped and a supply amount of the cleaning water supplied by the water supply mechanism in the standby state is controlled to be smaller than a supply amount of the cleaning water supplied by the water supply mechanism during outputting of measurement results of the measurement of the sample, the analysis systems of both Shimizu and Aoyagi et al. would both include control units, that would control the various processes/operations including controlling sample analysis.
Further, after each process in completed that process would be in a standby state waiting for processing a sequential sample. Such completion of each process before continuing with a subsequent sample is interpreted as being a “quasi-stop mode” similar to the description in applicant’s Fig. 3.
When one or more processes are in a quasi-stop mode and others operating it would be obvious to supply cleaning water to those still operating.
Regarding the newly added claim limitation that recites that the supply of the cleaning water is individually stoppable and individually continuable to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank, and the cleaning mechanism, it is noted that Shimizu teaches that control unit 35 controls the cleaning pump 32 to stop at a time t2 when a predetermined time has elapsed from the start of the supply of the cleaning water to stop the supply of the cleaning water, and that the supply of the washing water is controlled to be stopped from time t2 in FIG. 5B to time t4. [0041], [0077]
Thus, Shimizu teaches stopping and continuing the cleaning and washing water to individual components of the analyzer.
Lillig et al. teaches an analysis system that includes multiple washing stations via multiple modular analyzers and a common wash solution source that can be controlled to stop and continue supplying wash solution to any of the washing stations of the different modules. (column 7, line 59-68)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. to supply of the cleaning water individually stoppable and individually continuable to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank, and the cleaning mechanism when these components are idle or in use, in view of Shimizu teaching stopping and continuing cleaning and washing water to individual components and Lillig et al. teaching a common wash solution source in an analysis system that is be controlled to stop and continue supplying wash solution to any of a plurality of washing stations of modules of the system for purposes of reducing running cost due to water as taught by Aoyagi et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. to reduce the cleaning time that cleaning water is used by to at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism, to thereby reduce the amount of cleaning water as taught by Lillig et al.
As to claim 10 reciting that “at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism is not completely stopped and a supply amount of the cleaning water supplied by the water supply mechanism in the standby state is controlled to be smaller than a supply amount of the cleaning water supplied by the water supply mechanism during outputting of measurement results of the measurement of the sample, in Shimizu in view of Aoyagi when stopping the cleaning of one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe, the cleaning water supply would not be completely stopped to the other elements, but would be smaller due to not being supplied to one of the elements. Operating the cleaning water in such a manner during outputting of the measurement results would have been an obvious matter of choice when the cleaning of one or more of the probes/tanks can coincide with outputting the measurement results.
As to claim 10 reciting that based on a quasi-stop mode condition table in which setting conditions of a stop condition and a start condition of the cleaning water are stored, supply of the cleaning water to at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism is stopped, and supply of the cleaning water to the at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism is continued, for purposes of performing automatic operation in Shimizu in view of Aoyagi, it would have been obvious to include subprograms/settings within the system controller (incorporated from either Shimizu or Aoyagi) that provides for the stop and start conditions of the cleaning water to stop and restart cleaning water to at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism.
I) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above, Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. teaches all the elements of applicant’s claim 10.
Therefore, Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’ claim 11, as noted above Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites a first setting unit for individually receiving a setting indicating whether to supply the cleaning water to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism in the quasi-stop mode.
In Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. it would have been obvious for an operator of the automatic analysis device to receive a setting indicating whether to supply the cleaning water to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism in the quasi-stop during a standby time when any of such elements are not in use for purposes of reducing cost of cleaning water when monitoring the overall operation.
As to applicant’s first setting unit for individually receiving a setting indicating whether to supply the cleaning water to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism in the quasi-stop mode, as noted above, the first setting unit is disclosed as being a “cleaning water stop and start condition setting screen,” and a “switching button for setting cleaning water presence and absence” which implies a user has to push the button to control the cleaning water supply.
In Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. it would have been obvious for an operator of the automatic analysis device to determine and manually activate a switching button on the like to provide a setting that is receive for whether to supply the cleaning water to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism in the quasi-stop during a standby time when any of such elements are not in use for purposes of reducing cost of cleaning water when monitoring the overall operation.
Therefore, Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’ claim 12, as noted above Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. renders claim 11 obvious from which claim 12 depends.
Claim 12 recites a second setting unit for individually receiving a setting indicating a timing to enter the standby state for transition to the quasi-stop mode, and a timing to start the measurement to transition to an operation state for the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism.
Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al, and Lillig et al. does not teach a second setting unit that individually sets a timing to enter the standby state for transition to the quasi-stop mode, and a timing to start the measurement to transition to an operation state for the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism.
In Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. it would have been obvious for an operator of the automatic analysis device to set a timing to enter the standby state for transition to the quasi-stop mode, and a timing to start the measurement to transition to an operation state for the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism for purposes controlling such element and thereby reduce cost of cleaning water when monitoring the overall operation.
As to applicant’s second setting unit that, as noted above, the second setting unit is disclosed as being a “cleaning water stop condition setting tab,” and a “cleaning water stop and start condition setting screen.”
In Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. it would have been obvious for an operator of the automatic analysis device to operate a setting tab to set a timing to enter the standby state for transition to the quasi-stop mode, and a timing to start the measurement to transition to an operation state for the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism for purposes controlling such element and thereby reduce cost of cleaning water when monitoring the overall operation.
Therefore, Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’ claim 13, as noted above Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. renders claim 10 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites that the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank and the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank are targets for reducing the supply amount of the cleaning water or stopping the supply of the cleaning water.
Claim 13 does not add any structural elements or limitations to the elements recited in claim 10 from which claim 13 depends.
Therefore, Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 14, claim 14 recites a method of operating an automatic analyzer that performs qualitative and quantitative analysis of a liquid obtained by reaction of a sample and a reagent, wherein based on a determination, by a control unit of the automatic analyzer, that the automatic analyzer is in a standby state in which a measurable state is maintained wherein a measurement of the sample is acceptable, the automatic analyzer is operated in a quasi-stop mode in which supply of cleaning water supplied to a sample Page 4 of 8 dispensing probe that dispenses the sample to a reaction vessel for reaction of the sample and the reagent, a sample dispensing probe cleaning tank that cleans an outer periphery of the sample dispensing probe after the sample is dispensed, a reagent dispensing probe that dispenses the reagent to the reaction vessel, a reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank that cleans an outer periphery of the reagent dispensing probe after the reagent is dispensed, and a cleaning mechanism that cleans the reaction vessel after the measurement is completed is reduced but not completely stopped, the supply of the cleaning water to at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank, and the cleaning mechanism is stopped, and the supply of the cleaning water to a different one or more of the at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank, and the cleaning mechanism is continued, and whether to execute the quasi-stop mode can be selected.
As noted above, Shimizu teaches and automatic analyzer that performs qualitative and quantitative analysis of a liquid obtained by reaction of a sample and a reagent [0001] - [0002]. The automatic analyzer includes:
a reaction disk 5 that includes a plurality of reaction vessels for reaction of the sample with the reagent [0020];
a sample dispensing probe 16 that dispenses the sample to the reaction vessels on the reaction disk [0023];
a sample dispensing probe cleaning tank 23 that cleans an outer periphery of the sample dispensing probe after the sample is dispensed [0023];
a reagent dispensing probe that dispenses the reagent to the reaction vessels on the reaction disk [00210;
a reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank that cleans an outer periphery of the reagent dispensing probe after the reagent is dispensed [0022];
a cleaning mechanism that cleans the reaction vessels after measurement is completed (photometric system 13 [0021];
a water supply mechanism that supplies cleaning water to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism [0023];
Shimizu does not teach operating the automatic analyzer so that when the automatic analyzer is in a standby state in which a measurable state is maintained wherein a measurement of the sample is acceptable, the automatic analyzer is operated in a quasi-stop mode in which supply of cleaning water supplied to a sample dispensing probe that dispenses the sample to a reaction vessel for reaction of the sample and the reagent, a sample dispensing probe cleaning tank that cleans an outer periphery of the sample dispensing probe after the sample is dispensed, a reagent dispensing probe that dispenses the reagent to the reaction vessel, a reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank that cleans an outer periphery of the reagent dispensing probe after the reagent is dispensed, and a cleaning mechanism that cleans the reaction vessel after the measurement is completed is not completely stopped, the supply of the cleaning water to at least one of the above is stopped, and the supply of the cleaning water to one or more of the above is continued, and whether to execute the quasi-stop mode can be selected.
Aoyagi et al. teaches an automatic analysis device that “reduces the standby time of a user by promptly responding to an emergency specimen and also reduces running cost due to water, electric power, etc., arising when no measurement is conducted” (PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED).
This goal is achieved by stopping operation of a cleaning mechanism for the duration of a standby time (SOLUTION).
It would have been obvious to modify Shimizu by stopping operation of the cleaning of any one of the at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank during a standby time when any of such elements are not in use for purposes of reducing cost of cleaning water as taught by Aoyagi et al.
As to the control unit being “configured” to, make a determination that the sample is not analyzed by the automatic analyzer and the automatic analyzer is in a standby state, in which a measurable state is maintained wherein the measurement of the sample is acceptable, and, based on the determination, to execute a quasi-stop mode in which supply of the cleaning water supplied by the water supply mechanism to at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank and the cleaning mechanism is reduced but not completely stopped and the supply of the cleaning water to at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank, and the cleaning mechanism is stopped, and the supply of the cleaning water to a different one or more of the at least one of the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank, and the cleaning mechanism is continued, and whether to execute the quasi-stop mode can be selected, the analysis systems of both Shimizu and Aoyagi et al. would both include control units, that would control the various processes/operations including controlling sample analysis and the control units would be “configured” to determine is a sample analyzing process has not been conducted while one or more of the other processes are in a standby state, while the measurable state is maintained.
Further, after each process in completed that process would be in a standby state waiting for processing a sequential sample. Such completion of each process before continuing with a subsequent sample is interpreted as being a “quasi-stop mode” similar to the description in applicant’s Fig. 3.
When one or more processes are in a quasi-stop mode and others operating it would be obvious to supply cleaning water to those still operating.
Regarding the newly added claim limitation that recites that the supply of the cleaning water is individually stoppable and individually continuable to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank, and the cleaning mechanism, it is noted that Shimizu teaches that control unit 35 controls the cleaning pump 32 to stop at a time t2 when a predetermined time has elapsed from the start of the supply of the cleaning water to stop the supply of the cleaning water, and that the supply of the washing water is controlled to be stopped from time t2 in FIG. 5B to time t4. [0041], [0077]
Thus, Shimizu teaches stopping and continuing the cleaning and washing water to individual components of the analyzer.
Lillig et al. teaches an analysis system that includes multiple washing stations via multiple modular analyzers and a common wash solution source that can be controlled to stop and continue supplying wash solution to any of the washing stations of the different modules. (column 7, line 59-68)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. to supply of the cleaning water individually stoppable and individually continuable to the sample dispensing probe, the sample dispensing probe cleaning tank, the reagent dispensing probe, the reagent dispensing probe cleaning tank, and the cleaning mechanism when these components are idle or in use, in view of Shimizu teaching stopping and continuing cleaning and washing water to individual components and Lillig et al. teaching a common wash solution source in an analysis system that is be controlled to stop and continue supplying wash solution to any of a plurality of washing stations of modules of the system for purposes of reducing running cost due to water as taught by Aoyagi et al.
Therefore, Shimizu in view of Aoyagi et al. and Lillig et al. renders claim 14 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies upon Lillig et al. as teaching a common wash solution source in an analysis system that is controlled to stop and continue supplying wash solution to any of a plurality of washing stations of different modules in the analysis system.
Further, as noted above, Shimizu teaches that control unit 35 controls the cleaning pump 32 to stop at a time t2 when a predetermined time has elapsed from the start of the supply of the cleaning water to stop the supply of the cleaning water, and that the supply of the washing water is controlled to be stopped from time t2 in FIG. 5B to time t4.
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 MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798