CTNF 17/635,992 CTNF 77144 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/06/26 has been entered. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claim limitation “ degassing module ” in claim 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “ module ” coupled with functional language “ degassing ” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. The term “module” is merely a generic placeholder for the term “means.” Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover any art-recognized structure capable of performing the claimed function. The disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation. See id. at 1380, 53 USPQ2d at 1229; In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1997). See MPEP 2181(II)(A). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/06/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has argued that the present claims do not invoke 36 U.S.C. 112(f) and also are not unclear based on the portions of the application disclosure cited in Applicant’s Remarks. See pages 6-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, especially pages 7-8 directed to the Specification and Figures being considered together and the citations from the Specification. Upon further consideration, the Examiner agrees with Applicant; therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/06/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda et al. (US 2012/0237400) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claims 1 to include the limitation of “a degassing module arranged upstream of the detector” and then argued that this feature is not taught by the cited prior art, Ikeda. See claim 1 and page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made below. Regarding claims 2, 3 and 5 – In Paragraph 18 of the Final Rejection mailed 10/08/25, the Examiner had previously stated that claims 2, 3 and 5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in the Final Rejection. The Examiner submits that this statement was correct for claims 2 and 5, but incorrect for claim 3 . During examination, the Examiner erroneously included claim 3 with other allowable subject matter based on a mistake that claim 3 depended from claim 2 – and not claim 1 . The Examiner apologizes for the error. Claims 2 and 5 are allowed. See Paragraph 13 below. Claim 3 has been cancelled with the degassing module now recited in claim 1. Claims 1 and 4 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2012/0237400) in view of Ricchio et al. (US 5,130,095). See Paragraphs 10-12 below. See also Paragraphs 10-12 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed 04/24/25 which reject previous claim 3 under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2012/0237400) in view of Ricchio et al. (US 5,130,095). Inventorship 07-20-02-aia AIA 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda et al. (US 2012/0237400) in view of Ricchio et al. (US 5,130,095). Ikeda teaches a reagent preparation unit configured to prepare a reagent for a measuring unit and a controller configured to control both units. The embodiment of the device most relevant to the instant claims is shown in Figures 1-3 and described in Paragraphs 0025-0130 . Regarding claims 1 and 4 - As shown in Figure 3, Ikeda teaches an automated analysis device comprising a liquid container (diluting chambers 43/44) that holds a liquid, and a liquid sending unit that sends a liquid in the liquid container (diluting chambers 43/44) via a flow path, further comprising: a detector (air bubble sensor 400/401) configured to detect gas in the flow path; a priming function unit (chambers 41/42) configured to replace the liquid in the flow path; and a control unit (controller 49) configured to determine that bubbles are incorporated in the liquid in the flow path when the detector detects gas in the flow path, wherein when it is determined that bubbles are incorporated in the liquid in the flow path, the control unit controls the priming function unit to replace the liquid in the flow path and if the detector detects the gas again during the replacement of the liquid, the control unit determines that the reagent is in a shortage state in which the required amount of liquid is not present in the liquid container and stops the analysis processing of the automatic analysis device. The Examiner directs Applicant to Paragraph 0044 of Ikeda which teaches that the diluting chambers (43/44) are refilled from the reagent chamber (41) and RO water chamber (42) when the complete discharge of all the liquid from the diluting chamber (43/44) is confirmed based on the detection result of the air bubble sensor (400/401). Ikeda does not teach a degassing module arranged upstream of the detector. Ricchio teaches an automatic chemistry analyzer. The embodiments or portions of the analyzer most relevant to the instant system are shown in Figures 3-7 and described in columns 3-7. Ricchio teaches a degassing or debubbling unit for degassing fluids used in the system in Figures 5-6 and column 7. The degassing unit (107) removes gas on a liquid feed line that is located upstream of the detector. See Figure 5. The Examiner submits it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective date of the invention to combine the degasser from Ricchio with the apparatus of Ikeda. One of ordinary skill in the art would add the degasser to Ikeda in order to degas liquids while passing them through the analysis system as taught by Ricchio . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 2 and 5 are allowed. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As noted in Paragraph 18 of the Final Rejection, claim 2 recites "a first detector configured to detect gas in the first flow path; a second detector configured to detect gas in the second flow path: a vacuum pump configured to suction a liquid in the dilution tank: a display; and a control unit configured to: determine, based on the first detector, that bubbles are in the internal standard solution in the (first low path determine), based on the second detector, that bubbles are in the diluent in the second flow path, upon determining the bubbles are incorporated in the internal standard solution in the first flow path, perform a first replacement operation including controlling the internal standard solution syringe to send the internal standard solution to the dilution tank and then controlling the vacuum pump to suction the internal standard solution from the dilution tank, upon determining the bubbles are in the diluent in the second flow path, perform a second replacement operation including controlling the diluent to send the diluent to the dilution tank and then controlling the vacuum pump to suction the diluent from the dilution tank". The Examiner submits the combination of features that includes the features recited above as in claim 2 are not taught or suggested by the cited prior art . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWAYNE K HANDY whose telephone number is (571)272-1259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-7PM. 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 571-270-3638. 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. /DWAYNE K HANDY/Examiner, Art Unit 1798 May 16, 2026 /CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798 Application/Control Number: 17/635,992 Page 2 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 17/635,992 Page 3 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 17/635,992 Page 4 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 17/635,992 Page 6 Art Unit: 1798 Application/Control Number: 17/635,992 Page 7 Art Unit: 1798
Prosecution Insights