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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 5-7, filed 7/8/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are not considered persuasive in light of the new amendments.
Specifically, the Applicant claims the cited references do not disclose, teach, or suggest an automatic analysis device including a plurality of internal fins located between a fan and an air conditioner and connected to a first Peltier element.
This argument has been considered and is not persuasive. It is known in the art that heat sinks are a plurality of internal elements (typically referred to as “fins”) that are connected to a fan and configured to increase the surface area for thermal exchange, see “Heat Sinks,” now provided as an evidentiary reference. Further, it appears that there are at least two fins depicted in Fig. 25 of Fauzzi et al.
The applicant argues that the cited references fail to disclose, teach or suggest an automatic analysis device including a second Peltier element, a third Peltier element, and a fourth Peltier element as recited in amended claim 1. Further, the Applicant suggests that Heimberg discloses that each internal segment 8 containing the corresponding reaction vessel receiving element 9 that the Peltier elements 7 are coupled to in FIG. 7 is separated by insulation and that the internal segments 8 may be independently set to different temperatures by the Peltier element 7 of Heimberg coupled to each internal segment 8.
In response to these arguments, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the thermal elements of Heimberg et al. can all be set to the same temperature (see [0043]) for the rapid cooling of all reagents within one internal space, referred to as the reaction vessel receiving element 9, see [0034]-[0035]. In addition, the spacing shown between each reagent plate is representative of the size of a typical microtiter plate and is not “insulation” as the Applicant suggested because that is part of a later embodiment that the Examiner has not mapped the claims to. While there is spacing shown in the Figures, there is spacing shown in the instant Application’s drawings, and the heaters are all heating the same contained space 9, see Fig. 1 in Heimberg et al.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe et al. (US 2019/0308194, US Translation of WO2018012212 with publication date of 1/18/2018), in view of Fauzzi et al. (US 2006/0148063), and Heimberg et al. (US 2006/0228268), and “Heat Sinks” cited as an evidentiary reference.
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe et al. teaches an automatic analysis device (automatic analysis device, see Fig. 5 and [0002]) which reacts a specimen with a reagent and measures physical properties of a reacted reaction solution (device reacts a reagent with a specimen and measures the luminous intensity, or physical property, see [0002]), the device comprising:
a space which is partitioned from surroundings and where the reagent is used (reaction vessel 60 for holding a reagent, see Fig. 1, 5, and [0024]);
an air conditioner (heat block 100, see Fig. 1, 5, and [0022]) which includes a first Peltier element for adjusting an air temperature of the space (heat block includes voltage-controlled heater 62 (Peltier element) for heating reaction vessel (space), see Fig. 1, 5, and [0024]);
a first heat sink (heat transfer body 3, see Fig. 1, 5, and [0062]) which cools or heats the air conditioner with a liquid refrigerant (transfer body 3 heats the heat block (air conditioner) with heat medium 11 (liquid refrigerant), see [0062]- [0063])
a first radiator (high temperature region 65 that alters the temperature of the refrigerant, and is therefore a radiator, see Fig. 1, 5, and [0035]) which performs heat exchange between the liquid refrigerant which has exchanged heat with the first heat sink and air in the atmosphere (temperature region 65 exchanges heat from the refrigerant 11 with air, see Fig. 5 and [0065]);
a liquid supply which circulates the liquid refrigerant (heat recovery pump 41 used to circulate heat medium 11, see Fig. 5, [0053], and [0056]);
a reagent storage including an internal space which keeps the reagent cool and stores the reagent (a reagent refrigerator 102 to store the reagent bottle 63 and cool reagent, see Fig. 1, 5, and [0020]);
a heat dissipater (heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93, see Figs. 1, 5, [0025], and [0032]) which dissipates heat of the liquid refrigerant which has exchanged heat with the second heat sink (heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93 cools water 12 from refrigerator 102, see Figs. 1, 5, [0025], and [0032]).
In the analogous art of temperature control systems for reagent and sample carriers, Fauzzi et al. teaches a fan located in the space to circulate air within the space (Fan 780a within the temperature controlled space, see Fig. 35 and [0268]);
a plurality of internal fins located between the fan and the air conditioner in the space and connected to the first Peltier element configured to increase surface area exposure for heat exchange between the first heat sink and the air within the space; (heat sink of 780a see Fig. 35 and [0268], where heat sinks comprises a plurality of fins that are inherently configured to increase surface areas for heat exchange, see “Heat Sinks”); and
a heat diffusion plate connected to the plurality of internal fins and the first Peltier element (heat sink 780b connected to the first pair of elements 780a, see Fig. 35 and [0268]).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that voltage-controlled temperature adjusting devices and the Peltier device comprising the fan, internal fin, and heat diffusion plate are functional equivalents for providing temperature control to an automatic analyzer system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the Peltier device of Fauzzi et al. for the heating element of Watanabe because both elements were known equivalents for providing thermal control within a refrigerated reagent/sample system within the automatic analyzer art. The substitution would have resulted in the predictable result of providing temperature control to the automatic analyzer.
Furthermore, Watanabe et al. does not teach that the device includes a second Peltier element third Peltier element, and a fourth Peltier element for adjusting the temperature of the reagent storage; a second heat sink which cools or heats the second Peltier element, a third heat sink which cools or heats the third Peltier element, a fourth heat sink which cools or heats the fourth Peltier element.
In the analogous art of devices for controlling the temperature of reaction vessels, Heimberg et al. teaches a device (1) including a second Peltier element, third Peltier element, and a fourth Peltier element for adjusting the temperature of the reagent storage (three Peltier elements 7. See Fig. 1 and [0033] – [0035]); a second heat sink which cools or heats the second Peltier element, a third heat sink which cools or heats the third Peltier element, a fourth heat sink which cools or heats the fourth Peltier element (each Peltier element 7 also has a heat exchanger (sink) 6, see Fig. 1 and [0034], where the exchangers are used to control the temperature of the Peltier, see [0038]). Modifying the reagent storage of Watanabe et al. to include the additional Peltier elements as shown by Heimberg et al. would have provided the benefit of heating a plurality of samples to the same temperature within a reaction chamber to perform conventional thermocycling which is necessary for the detection of many analytes within a biological sample, see [0043] in Heimberg et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the reagent storage of Watanabe et al. to include the plurality of Peltier elements as shown by Heimberg et al. to control the temperature of reagent prior to usage for analysis or other experimentation (see [0005] – [0008] in Heimberg et al.). The modification of the refrigerator of Watanabe et al. to include the Peltier elements and their respective heat exchangers (sinks) of Heimberg et al. would not have deviated from the scope of the invention and would have been obvious as Peltier coolers and heat exchangers were known in the art to provide adequate temperature control for reagents (see [0043] in Watanabe et al.). Additionally, modifying the invention of Watanabe et al. to include the Peltier coolers and their associated heat sinks of Heimberg et al. would have had the reasonable expectation of successfully facilitating temperature-controlled reagent storage while the analysis device is in standby or in non-controlled environments.
Regarding claim 2, modified Watanabe teaches the automatic analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the first radiator (temperature region 65) and the heat dissipater (heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93) are disposed so as to perform heat exchange (temperature region 65 and heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93 perform heat exchange, see [0032] and [0035]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Watanabe teaches the automatic analysis device according to claim 2, further comprising:
a second radiator as a heat dissipater (heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93 is a radiator as it adjusts the temperature of the refrigerant, see [0025] and [0032]) which performs heat exchange with the liquid refrigerant (heat medium 12) which has exchanged heat with the second heat sink and the air in the atmosphere (the heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93 performs heat exchange with the heat medium 12, see Fig. 5, [0025], [0032], and [0054]).
Regarding claim 4, modified Watanabe teaches the automatic analysis device according to claim 3, wherein a first loop, in which the first heat sink (heat transfer body 3), the first radiator (high temperature region 65), and the liquid supply (heat recovery pump 41) are connected to each other by a first liquid flow path (transport passage 5 connects the transfer body, high temperature region, and heat recovery pump, see Fig. 5 and [0054]) , and
a second loop, in which the second heat sink (cooling member 16 of Yabuhara included within reagent refrigerator 102), the second radiator (heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93), and a second liquid supply (cooling water pump 95, see [0054]) for circulating the liquid refrigerant (pump 95 circulates heat medium 12, see [0054]) are connected to each other by a second liquid flow path, and formed (path of second loop connects reagent refrigerator, heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93, and pump 95, see Fig. 5, [0054], and [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Watanabe teaches the automatic analysis device according to claim 4, further comprising an air blower (exhaust fan 94, see [0027]) which flows the air which has exchanged heat with the first radiator (high temperature region 65) and the second radiator (heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93) (fan 94 flows air to each radiator, see Fig. 5, [0027], [0029] and [0031]),
wherein the first radiator and the second radiator are disposed in series such that the first radiator is on an upstream side in an airflow generated by the air blower (the high temperature region 65 and heat dissipating device 91 of the second radiator are placed in series where the high temperature region 65 is located on an upper side (upstream) of air stream 22, see Fig. 1, 5, [0027], and [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Watanabe teaches the automatic analysis device according to claim 5, wherein a heat exchange area of the first radiator (high temperature region 65) is smaller than the heat exchange area of the second radiator (high temperature region 65 is smaller than the combined heat dissipating device 91 coupled with cooling device 93, see Fig. 5).
PNG
media_image1.png
535
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5
Regarding claim 7, modified Watanabe teaches the automatic analysis device according to claim 3, further comprising:
a third liquid flow path (temperature mixing part 50, see Fig. 5 and [0057]) which guides the liquid refrigerant (heat medium) which has exchanged heat with the first radiator (high temperature region) to the second heat sink (heat medium flows from the high temperature region to the reagent refrigerator that comprises the second heat sink, see Fig. 5 and [0057]) ;
a fourth liquid flow path (see annotated Fig. 5) which guides the liquid refrigerant (heat medium) which has exchanged heat with the second heat sink (modified reagent refrigerator) to the second radiator (heat medium flows from the reagent refrigerator to the cooling device 93 of the second radiator, see [0057]);
a fifth liquid flow path (see annotated Fig. 5) which guides the liquid refrigerant which has exchanged heat with the second radiator to the liquid supply (second loop comprises path that guides heat medium from cooling device to the cooling water pump 95, or second liquid supply, see Fig. 5 and [0054]);
a sixth liquid flow path (see annotated Fig. 5) which guides the liquid from the liquid supply (heat recovery pump 41) to the first heat sink (outlined path guides heat medium from heat recovery pump 41 to heat transfer body 3, or first heat sink, see [0056]); and
a seventh liquid flow path (see annotated Fig. 5) which guides the liquid refrigerant which has exchanged heat with the first heat sink to the first radiator (high temperature passage 40 guides medium from heat transfer body 3 to high temperature region 65, or the first radiator, see [0056]).
Regarding claim 8, modified Watanabe teaches the automatic analysis device according to claim 3, comprising:
a first airflow path (see annotated Fig. 5) which guides the air that has exchanged heat with the second radiator to the exhaust port or the first radiator (first path is used to guide refrigerant and therefore is also moving the air in the path, see [0055]) and is therefore capable of guiding air that has exchanged heat with the second radiator to the first radiator
a second airflow path in which the first radiator is disposed (see annotated Fig. 5) which guides the air supplied from the first airflow path to the outside through the first radiator (outlined path guides air past high temperature region 65, or the first radiator, see Figs. 1, 5.2, and [0035]);
a third airflow path (see annotated Fig. 5) that directly guides the air supplied from the first airflow path to the outside (third path leads outside, see annotated Fig. 5;
a first air inlet port which is provided at a position in front of the first radiator of the second airflow path (inlet provided at entrance of air passage, see Fig. 5) and guides air from the outside of the second airflow path to the second airflow path (inlet provides air from outside to third airflow path, see annotated Fig. 5);
However, the present embodiment of Watanabe et al. does not teach a first flow path switch which switches the air guided to the second airflow path between the air from the first airflow path and the air from the first air inlet port.
A later embodiment teaches a first flow path switching that switches the air guided to the second airflow path between the air from the first airflow path and the air from the first air inlet port (the damper 23 is used to switch air between pathways, see Fig. 7 and [0068]- [0069], and would therefore be able to guide air to the second airflow path between the air from the first airflow path and the air from the first air inlet port).
It would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have included the flow path switch between airflow paths as exemplified by the later embodiment of Watanabe et al. for the benefit of controlling the flow rate of gas within the airflow path (see [0028] in Watanabe). A person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been driven to the include the flow path switch, or adjusting damper, of Watanabe for the benefit of ensuring air circulation through the system for adequate heat exchange and heat venting. The modification of the airflow paths of Watanabe to include the volume ratio adjusting damper of the following embodiment would have had the reasonable expectation of successfully venting waste air from the system and preventing issues that a buildup of hot gas may cause.
PNG
media_image2.png
519
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 5.2
Regarding claim 9, modified Watanabe teaches the automatic analysis device according to claim 2, comprising:
a fourth airflow path as the heat dissipater (heat dissipating device 91 of heat dissipater, see Fig. 5) which guides the air that has exchanged heat with the second heat sink to the exhaust port or the first radiator (heat dissipating device guides air through air passage and would therefore be able to guide the air that has exchanged heat with the second heat sink to the exhaust port or the first radiator, see Figs. 1, 5, and [0028]);
a fifth airflow path in which the first radiator is disposed (see annotated Fig. 5b) and which guides the air supplied from the fourth airflow path to the outside through the first radiator (outlined path guides air past high temperature region 65, or the first radiator, see Figs. 1, 5.2, and [0035]);
a sixth airflow path (see annotated Fig. 5b) which guides the air supplied from the fourth airflow path directly to the outside (sixth path leads outside, see annotated Fig. 5.2);
a second air inlet port which is provided at a position in front of the first radiator of the fifth airflow path (inlet provided at entrance of air passage, see Fig. 5.2) and guides air from the outside of the fifth airflow path to the fifth airflow path (inlet provides air from outside to fifth airflow path, see Fig. 5.2); and
However, the present embodiment of Watanabe et al. does not teach a second flow path switch which switches the air guided to the fifth airflow path between the air from the fourth airflow path and the air from the second air inlet port.
Conversely, Example 7 of Watanabe teaches an air volume ratio adjusting damper 23, or a second flow path switch, which switches the air guided to the fifth airflow path between the air from the fourth airflow path and the air from the second air inlet port (the damper 23 is used to switch air between pathways, see Fig. 7 and [0068]- [0069], and would therefore be able to guide air to the fifth airflow path between the air from the fourth airflow path and the air from the second air inlet port).
It would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have included the flow path switch between airflow paths as exemplified by the later embodiment of Watanabe et al. for the benefit of controlling the flow rate of gas within the airflow path (see [0028] in Watanabe). A person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application would have been driven to the include the flow path switch, or adjusting damper, of Watanabe for the benefit of ensuring air circulation through the system for adequate heat exchange and heat venting. The modification of the airflow paths of Watanabe to include the volume ratio adjusting damper of the following embodiment would have had the reasonable expectation of successfully venting waste air from the system and preventing issues that a buildup of hot gas may cause.
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 ALEA MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5283. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5:00PM (EST).
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/A.N.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758