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 Amendment
This is an office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 12/19/2025. Claims 1 and 5-8 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 8-16 of the Remarks, the Applicant asserts that the primary reference of Yamamoto (JP2009270453) does not teach or suggest that the control unit computes an actual amount of movement of the movable stage based on the first position and the second position, and based on a number of pulses applied to the motor to move the movable stage from the first position to the second position, and the control unit computes the actual liquid delivery amount based on the amount of movement and a designed amount of movement before the tube of the tube pump is degraded, and that the secondary reference of Luedemann (US PG Pub 2017/0205270) does not rectify these deficiencies of the primary reference.
On Page 9 of the Remarks, the Applicant specifically states that Luedemann’s general suggestion of the position of a target delivery container being “read and “recorded” does not teach or reasonably suggest Applicant’s arrangement including computing an actual amount of movement of the movable stage based on a number of pulses supplied to the motor to move the movable stage from the first position to the second position.
In response to this argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as the computer stores and calculates information regarding the position of the microplate based on the vertical movement of the stage 20, see [0118] in Luedemann, where the number of pulses supplied to move the stage vertically and its relation to the sensor are recorded optically, see [0159]. Therefore, based on a number of received optical signals, or pulses, from the stage 20, Luedemann provides vertical information regarding the target container’s position.
In response to applicant’s argument on Pages 10-12 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the invention of Yamamoto is drawn to a general liquid delivery system and an associated analysis device, see [0001] and [0025], where Luedemann is drawn to the improvement of the precision of liquid delivery systems with associated optical analysis devices, see [0006] and Abstract.
In response to applicant's argument on Pages 12-14 that Luedemann does not teach the arrangement of the tube pump and roller as discussed by Applicant in claim 1, the Examiner agrees and points that this limitation is rejected by Yamamoto, and that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (JP2009270453, cited on 1/19/22 IDS, English Translation cited by Examiner), and further in view of Luedemann (US PG Pub 2017/0205270, cited on 8/1/23 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches an automatic analyzer (see [0001]) comprising:
a tube pump comprising a tube forming a flow path and a roller (peristaltic pump 33 with flow path 32/34, see [0002] and Fig. 1) and configured to deliver a liquid from a liquid bottle accommodating the liquid to a liquid delivery target container (pump 33 moves a fluid from a first container to a second liquid container, see Fig. 1, [0014], and [0026]);
a liquid surface detecting unit sensor constructed to have a bar shape extending-in the vertical direction and configured to detect a liquid surface of the liquid in the liquid delivery target container when the liquid surface of the liquid in the liquid delivery target container makes contact with a lower side of the liquid surface detecting sensor (liquid level sensor 35 constructed of a probe, which is a bar shaped in the vertical direction, that detects the surface of the fluid in the second container after dispensing, see Fig. 1, [0014], and [0025]); and
a control unit (CPU 1, see [0026]),
wherein the tube pump delivers the liquid to the liquid delivery target container during a design liquid delivery time previously determined to be necessary to deliver the liquid in a design liquid delivery amount before the tube of the tube pump is degraded (the peristaltic pump delivers fluid to the second container before the pump requires maintenance, see [0026] – [0027]);
wherein the control unit computes an actual liquid delivery amount of the liquid for the design liquid delivery time (the CPU determines the amount of liquid dispensed based on the liquid level sensor reading, see [0026] - [0027]), and the control unit determines a degradation state of the tube of the tube pump based on a difference in a distance between the design liquid delivery amount and the measured actual liquid delivery amount at the second position at which the liquid surface is detected by the liquid surface detecting sensor (the CPU determines if the pump needs maintenance based on the determination made by the liquid level sensor 35 and the expected value, see [0026] – [0027]).
However, Yamamoto does not explicitly teach the claimed elements of a movable stage configured to mount the liquid delivery target container; a vertical drive mechanism configured to drive the movable stage in a vertical direction; where the vertical drive mechanism moves the mounting unit movable stage mounting the liquid delivery target container to which the liquid has been delivered from a first position to a second position at which the liquid surface is to be detected by the liquid surface detecting sensor and wherein the control unit computes an actual amount of movement of the movable stage based on the first position and the second position, and based on a number of pulses applied to the motor to move the movable stage from the first position to the second position, and the control unit computes the actual liquid delivery amount based on the amount of movement and a designed amount of movement before the tube of the tube pump is degraded.
In the analogous art of liquid handling platforms and automatic analyzers, Luedemann teaches a device comprising a movable stage configured to mount the liquid delivery target container (stage 20 holding microplate, or target container, see Fig. 1 and [0118]); a vertical drive mechanism configured to drive the movable stage in a vertical direction (stage drives microplate 30 in a vertical direction 52B, see Fig. 1 and [0118]); where the vertical drive mechanism moves the mounting unit movable stage mounting the liquid delivery target container to which the liquid has been delivered from a first position to a second position at which the liquid surface is to be detected by the liquid surface detecting unit sensor (stage 20 moves microplate 30 from a first reference position to a second position where a camera 11 detects the liquid surface 34, see Fig. 1, [0118], [0120], [0128], and [0169]), and
wherein the control unit computes an actual amount of movement of the mounting unit based on the first position and the second position (the computer stores and calculates information regarding the position of the microplate, see [0118] in Luedemann, where the movement is recorded between an initial calibration and a second position after moving, see [0125] – [0128]), and the control unit computes the actual liquid delivery amount based on the actual amount of movement and a designed amount of movement before the tube of the tube pump is degraded (the camera 11 and connected computer 16 then calculates the volume of the fluid located within the well 32 of the microplate 30, see [0118]- [0120] in Luedemann, where the delivery of the liquid would necessarily occur before the pump is degraded).
wherein the control unit computes the actual amount of movement based on a number of revolutions of a motor of the vertical drive mechanism that occur when then movable stage moves from the first position to the second position (the computer stores and calculates information regarding the position of the microplate based on the vertical movement of the stage 20, see [0118] in Luedemann).
wherein the control unit computes the actual amount of movement based on a number of pulses supplied to the motor to move the movable stage from the first position to the second position (the computer stores and calculates information regarding the position of the microplate based on the vertical movement of the stage 20, see [0118] in Luedemann).
In the analogous art of liquid handling platforms and automatic analyzers, Luedemann teaches a device comprising a movable stage configured to mount the liquid delivery target container (stage 20 holding microplate, or target container, see Fig. 1 and [0118]); a vertical drive mechanism configured to drive the movable stage in a vertical direction (stage drives microplate 30 in a vertical direction 52B, see Fig. 1 and [0118]); where the vertical drive mechanism moves the mounting unit movable stage mounting the liquid delivery target container to which the liquid has been delivered from a first position to a second position at which the liquid surface is to be detected by the liquid surface detecting unit sensor (stage 20 moves microplate 30 from a first reference position to a second position where a camera 11 detects the liquid surface 34, see Fig. 1, [0118], [0120], [0128], and [0169]),
wherein the control unit computes an actual amount of movement of the mounting unit based on the first position and the second position (the computer stores and calculates information regarding the position of the microplate, see [0118] and [0125]-[0128] in Luedemann), and based on a number of pulses supplied to the motor to move the movable stage from the first position to the second position, (the computer stores and calculates information regarding the position of the microplate based on the vertical movement of the stage 20, see [0118] in Luedemann, where the number of pulses supplied to move the stage vertically and its relation to the sensor are recorded optically, see [0159]) and the control unit computes the actual liquid delivery amount based on the actual amount of movement and a designed amount of movement before the tube of the tube pump is degraded (the camera 11 and connected computer 16 then calculates the volume of the fluid located within the well 32 of the microplate 30, see [0118]- [0120] in Luedemann, where the control unit determines the actual amount of vertical displacement to determine the volume dispensed, see [0125] – [0128] and [0156]).
The modification of the automated analyzer of Yamamoto to include the stage, that provides vertical movement of the target liquid container of Luedemann would have been obvious to a person possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application for the benefit of evaluating the performance of the pump to provide a precise and accurate evaluation of the fluid dispensed into a container (see [0006]- [0008] in Luedemann). Modifying automatic analyzers and their liquid target containers to move vertically to accept liquid while monitoring a dispensed volume of fluid using a sensor was known in the art prior to the instant application (see [0005]- [0006] in Luedemann). Therefore, the modification of the automatic analyzer of Yamamoto to include the stage of Luedemann would have yielded the reasonable expectation of successfully facilitating the movement of the target container vertically to ensure complete fluid deposition, as required by the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, modified Yamamoto teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 1, wherein the control unit computes actual liquid delivery time necessary to deliver the liquid in the design liquid delivery amount based on the actual liquid delivery amount and the design liquid delivery amount (the CPU is used to calculate the flow rate required to fill the second liquid container, where the flow rate is the velocity of the fluid which includes time, see [0059] – [0060] in Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 6, modified Yamamoto teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 5, wherein the control unit compares the actual liquid delivery time with a liquid delivery time threshold to determine a maintenance option to for the tube pump (the CPU compares the measured flow rate against a stored threshold value, see [0059]-[0063] in Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamamoto teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 6, wherein when the actual liquid delivery time is smaller than the liquid delivery time threshold, the control unit determines that maintenance to for the tube pump is unnecessary, and the control unit sets the actual liquid delivery time on a time chart of analysis operation (if the flow rate threshold value has not been reached, the CPU places the time on a chart and continues operations, see [0059] – [0064] in Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamamoto teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 7, wherein when the actual liquid delivery time is the liquid delivery time threshold (flow rate change threshold value) or more, the control unit determines that maintenance for the tube pump is necessary, and the control unit outputs an indication the tube of the tube pump requires replacement (the control unit outputs an indication for replacement upon determination of the flow rate change, see [0059] - [0063] in Yamamoto).
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
Prosecution Insights