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 .
Remarks
This office action fully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on 23 June 2026.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are pending.
Claims 2-5 are cancelled.
No claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are amended.
No claims are newly added.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a plurality of dispensing mechanisms having a probe and dispensing a reagent or a sample” and should be amended to recite “a plurality of dispensing mechanisms each having a probe and dispensing a reagent or a sample”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a pump to supply washing water stored in the tank to the washing tank” and should be amended to recite “a pump to supply washing water stored in the tank to the plurality of washing tanks”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “during the designated washing period corresponding the valve” and should be amended to recite “during the designated washing period corresponding to the valve”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-11 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of valves provided for each of the washing tanks”; however, Applicant’s amended language implies only one valve is provided per washing tank, not a plurality of valves for each tank. Thus, it is unclear the valve arrangement Applicant is claiming. If applicant means one valve for each washing tank, Applicant may wish to amend the claim to recite something on the order of: “a plurality of valves, each valve being provided for a respective one of the plurality of washing tanks”.
Claim 1 further recites “there are a plurality of designated washing periods respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of valves which define a time period during which...” wherein it is unclear to what element the “which” is referring, the washing cycles or the valves. The claim further recites “a valve corresponding to the designated washing period is in an open state or a closed state” wherein it is unclear how the valve being in an open or closed state corresponds to a specific washing period. Applicant is suggested to specifically detail the operation of the valves rather than merely inferentially relating their operation to an arbitrary “wash cycle” and time period, such as by detailing opening or closing of a valve corresponding to a wash cycle and providing the conditions which necessitate the wash cycle within the claim.
Claim 1 further recites “wherein the controller is configured to control the solenoid valve to open to return washing water to the tank through the second flow channel only during in designated washing periods in which valves are in a closed state during the designated washing period corresponding the valve...” wherein it is unclear whether the common solenoid valve is opened when any one corresponding valve is closed, only when all corresponding valves are closed, separately within selected washing periods, or according to some other relationship. Further, the “closed state” is not particularly defined.
Claim Interpretation
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“a plurality of dispensing mechanisms…dispensing a reagent or a sample” in Claim 1.
“a washing mechanism to wash a reaction vessel” as in Claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Robotic arms holding aspiration probes as in Fig. 1 of Applicant’s instant drawings, and equivalents thereof.
A spray nozzle as in Fig. 1 of Applicant’s instant drawings, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Further, Claims 1 and 7-9 require “a sequence of the automatic analyzer” which is interpreted in view of the specification in Applicant’s pre-grant publication (US 2024/0012018 A1) paras. [0008] and [0034-0036] as being a series of analytical and/or preparational steps of the automatic analyzer applied to a sample such as a sequence of pipetting a sample, testing the sample, then washing excess sample the pipette. This interpretation being rather than including such steps as turning on/off the analyzer, sample insertion by an operator, etc.
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, 6-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (JP 21074288 A; as seen through the machine translation available on Google Patents and attached in a prior office action), hereinafter “Suzuki”, in view of Laska et al. (US PAT 5,104,808 A), hereinafter “Laska”, and Carey et al. (US 2002/0085959 A1), hereinafter “Carey”.
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches an automatic analyzer comprising:
a dispensing mechanism 21 having a probe 4 and dispensing a reagent or a sample (“The dispensing device 21 has an arm 30 holding a dispensing probe 4 made of a tube capable of sucking and discharging liquid…”);
a washing tank 7 in which an exterior of the probe is washed with washing water (“Since different samples or reagents must be dispensed one after another using the same probe, the probe is washed with a washing solution each time it is dispensed.”);
a tank 1 to store washing water (“The cleaning water in the cleaning water tank 1 is sucked up by the diaphragm pump 2 through the tube 12…”);
a pump 2 to supply washing water stored in the tank 1 to the washing tank 7 through a first flow channel 9/13 (“The cleaning water in the cleaning water tank 1 is sucked up by the diaphragm pump 2 through the tube 12…”);
a valve 5 provided for the washing tank to switch between supplying washing water to the washing tank 7 through the first flow channel 9/13 and returning washing water to the tank 1 through a second flow channel 10/14 connecting the first flow channel 9/13 and the tank 1 (Fig. 1 shows solenoid valve 5 for switching between delivering washing solution to the tank 1 through the first channel 9/13, and returning solution to the tank 1 via the channel 14. Further, the solenoid valve 5 switches to return wash solution aspirated through the probe 4 through the channel 13 and to the tank 1.);
a solenoid valve 6 that is installed in the second flow channel 10/14 (Fig. 1 shows solenoid valve 6 installed in the second channel 10/14.); and
and a controller 11 configured to control the valves 5/6 (“The switching operation of the electromagnetic valves 5 and 6…are also controlled by the microcomputer 11.”),
wherein the controller 11 is configured to control the solenoid valve to open to return washing water to the tank 1 through the second flow channel 10/14 only during in designated washing periods in which valves are in a closed state during the designated washing period corresponding the valve (“While the cleaning operation is not in progress, the solenoid valve 5, 6 are switched and the wash water is returned to the wash water tank 1 via the return channel 14.”), as in Claim 1.
Further regarding Claim 1, Suzuki does not specifically teach the automatic analyzer discussed above comprising a plurality of probes, a plurality of washing tanks, valves configures to control each washing tank, nor wherein at least some of a plurality of washing periods each of supplying washing water to the corresponding washing tank through the first flow channel and washing the probe with washing water are set in state of overlapping with each other in a cycle constituting a sequence of the automatic analyzer, as in Claim 1.
However, Laska teaches a respective automated analyzer comprising a plurality of probes, washing stations, and valves (Fig. 5), wherein this arrangement improves throughput of the device (Conclusion). Further note that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Herein, one skilled in the art would readily recognize that duplicating sample-handling assemblies increases sample throughput of a device.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the automated analyzer of Suzuki comprising a plurality of probes, a plurality of washing tanks, valves configured to control each washing tank, such as suggested by Laska, so as to increase sample throughput of the device; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further, Laska teaches the automated analyzer wherein at least some of a plurality of washing periods each of supplying washing water to the corresponding washing tank through the first flow channel and washing the probe with washing water are set in state of overlapping with each other in a cycle constituting a sequence of the automatic analyzer (col. 17, line 48: “the various analytical assays may be run in the same batch by running the several assays according to different time-templates such that the first wash of each assay occurs during the same instrument cycle.”), wherein this allows multiple probes to be washed simultaneously, thereby increasing throughput.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious that when providing multiple probes/wash basins/ valves to the device of Suzuki, that the device provides at least some of a plurality of washing periods each of supplying washing water to the corresponding washing tank through the first flow channel and washing the probe with washing water are set in state of overlapping with each other in a cycle constituting a sequence of the automatic analyzer, such as suggested by Laska, so as to increase throughput of the device, as opposed to a device where probes have to wait in a queue to be washed; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further as in Claim 1, in further view of the above lack of plural washing structures in Suzuki, Suzuki does not teach the requirement wherein the second flow channel is in fluid communication with each of the plurality of washing tanks, as in Claim 1.
However, Laska teaches a respective automated analyzer comprising a common second channel in fluid communication with a plurality of washing tanks, wherein the common second channel merely represents an alternative to the multiple channels for returning washing water to a common supply/waste tank. Both the common second channel suggested by Laska, and the plural second channels discussed above regarding Claim 5 as mere duplication of parts serve the identical purpose of serving as a water return means.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the automated analyzer of Suzuki wherein the second flow channel is installed commonly in response to the plural washing tanks, such as suggested by Laska, given that a common flow channel represents a mere obvious alternative for returning water to a wash/waste tank; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further regarding Claim 1, Suzuki does not specifically teach the automated analyzer discussed above wherein within each of a plurality of cycles which constitute a sequence of the automatic analyzer, there are a plurality of designated washing periods respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of valves which define a time period during which a valve corresponding to the designated washing period is in an open state or a closed state, the controller controlling the operation of the automatic analyzer according to the sequence of operation, as in Claim 1.
However, Carey teaches a respective automated analyzer having plural washing stations 15/16/17/18 (Figs. 2 and 75) each independently controllable and activatable through respective on/off valves V7, V8, V9, and V10 ([0302]). Paras. [0301-0302 and 0307-0309] further discuss respectively designated washing periods relating to each of the washing tanks 15/16/17/18 respectively corresponding to each of the on/off valves V7, V8, V9, and V10. Therein, this arrangement preserves the use of washing water to reduce waste and extend the length of time a washing water volume may provide washing before running out. Therein, such operations are controlled by a controller 11, wherein the specific washing periods define a valve in an open or closed state ([0307]) – see also Fig. 93A more specifically showing the valve arrangements of the device. Therein, the time period the probe is receiving washing water is the time period where the valve is open/closed.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the automatic analyzer of Suzuki/Laska wherein wherein within each of a plurality of cycles which constitute a sequence of the automatic analyzer, there are a plurality of designated washing periods respectively corresponding to each of the plurality of valves which define a time period during which a valve corresponding to the designated washing period is in an open state or a closed state, the controller controlling the operation of the automatic analyzer according to the sequence of operation, such as suggested by Carey, so as to preserve the use of washing water to reduce waste and extend the length of time a washing water volume may provide washing before running out.
Suzuki Fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
567
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Suzuki does not specifically teach the automatic analyzer discussed above wherein the designated washing periods do not overlap in each cycle, as in Claim 6.
However, the “designated washing periods” are drawn to a process recitation and, as the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. — As discussed above, Suzuki/Laska/Carey commensurately discloses a control unit that is fully capable of actuating the respective pump(s) and solenoid valve(s) such that washing periods of the plural washing tanks having the commonly installed second flow channel do not overlap in a cycle constituting a sequence of the automatic analyzer in as much as is positively claimed and required herein. Applicant may wish to amend the claims to recite that the controller is configured to wait for a respective washing period to be complete before starting a new washing period.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Suzuki does not specifically teach the automatic analyzer discussed above wherein the plurality of the washing tanks include a first washing tank and a second washing tank, wherein the designated washing period of the first washing tank and the designated washing period of the second washing tank partially overlap with each other in at least one cycle constituting a sequence of the automatic analyzer, and wherein the second flow channel corresponding to the first washing tank and the second flow channel corresponding to the second washing tank are different from each other, as in Claim 7.
However, Laska teaches a respective automated analyzer comprising a plurality of probes, washing stations, and valves (Fig. 5 shows a first washing tank and a second washing tank), wherein this arrangement improves throughput of the device (Conclusion). Further note that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced – see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Herein, one skilled in the art would readily recognize that duplicating sample-handling assemblies increases sample throughput of a device. Laska further teaches wherein the second flow channel corresponding to the first washing tank and the second flow channel corresponding to the second washing tank are different from each other (Fig. 5 shows two separate and distinct flow channels connected to the wash tanks 220 and 296.) so as to provide flow channels returning to a common tank along a non-uniform path.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the automated analyzer of Suzuki comprising a plurality of probes, a plurality of washing tanks, valves configured to control each washing tank wherein the second flow channel corresponding to the first washing tank and the second flow channel corresponding to the second washing tank are different from each other, such as suggested by Laska, so as to increase sample throughput of the device; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further, the “designated washing periods” are drawn to a process recitation and, as the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. — As discussed above, Suzuki/Laska/Carey commensurately discloses a control unit that is fully capable of actuating the respective pump(s) and solenoid valve(s) such that washing periods of the plural washing tanks having the commonly installed second flow channel do not overlap in a cycle constituting a sequence of the automatic analyzer in as much as is positively claimed and required herein. Applicant may wish to amend the claims to recite that the controller is configured to start a new wash cycle while other wash cycles are already being performed.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Suzuki teaches the automated analyzer discussed above wherein the automatic analyzer has a washing mechanism 15 to wash a reaction vessel 4 into which a sample or a reagent is dispensed (“Washing water is injected from the upper injection port 15 toward the probe4…”),
and wherein washing water stored in the tank 1 is supplied to the washing mechanism through the first flow channel 10/14 (Fig. 1 shows washing water provided from the tank 1 to the washing tank 7 via the first channel 10/14.),
as in Claim 9.
Further regarding Claim 9, Suzuki does not specifically teach the automatic analyzer discussed above wherein at least some of designated washing periods each of supplying washing water to the corresponding washing tank through the first flow channel and washing the probe with washing water are set in state of partially overlapping with each other in a cycle constituting a sequence of the automatic analyzer, as in Claim 9.
However, the “designated washing periods” are drawn to a process recitation and, as the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. — As discussed above, Suzuki/Laska/Carey commensurately discloses a control unit that is fully capable of actuating the respective pump(s) and solenoid valve(s) such that washing periods of the plural washing tanks having the commonly installed second flow channel do not overlap in a cycle constituting a sequence of the automatic analyzer in as much as is positively claimed and required herein. Applicant may wish to amend the claims to recite that the controller is configured to start a new wash cycle while other wash cycles are already being performed.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Laska and Carey, as applied to Claims 1, 6-7, and 9 above, and in further view of Fukaya et al. (WO 2018/055928 A1), referred to hereinafter as “Fukaya”.
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki does not specifically teach the automatic analyzer discussed above wherein, at least two of the designated washing periods partially overlap in at least one cycle constituting the sequence of the automatic analyzer, and wherein the controller is configured to control the degree of opening and closing of the solenoid valve in response to partial overlapping of the designated washing periods in a cycle of not washing the probes in the plurality of washing tanks having the overlapping washing period, as in Claim 8.
However, the “designated washing periods” are drawn to a process recitation and, as the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. — As discussed above, Suzuki/Laska/Carey commensurately discloses a control unit that is fully capable of actuating the respective pump(s) and solenoid valve(s) such that washing periods of the plural washing tanks having the commonly installed second flow channel do not overlap in a cycle constituting a sequence of the automatic analyzer in as much as is positively claimed and required herein. Applicant may wish to amend the claims to recite that the controller is configured to start a new wash cycle while other wash cycles are already being performed.
Further, Fukaya teaches a respective automated analyzer having a washing station wherein the degree of opening and closing of the solenoids valves supplying washing water to the washing station is controlled by a controller (“In this example, a syringe used for suction and discharge at the time of dispensing is used as the flow rate control mechanism, but the opening time of the solenoid valve and the opening amount are controlled and a throttle is arranged in the flow path, and the degree of the throttle is variable.”) wherein this arrangement allows for variable pressure control over water supplied to the washing station, thereby reducing error due to excess or too little water being supplied, such as wherein too much washing water would overwhelm the return channel and result in overflow and spillage.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify thew automated analyzer of Suzuki/Laska wherein the controller is configured to control the degree of opening and closing of the solenoid valve in response to overlapping of the washing periods in a cycle of not washing the probes in the plural washing tanks having the overlapping washing period, so as to prevent overflow due to overwhelming of the common return channel.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Laska and Carey, as applied to Claims 1, 6-7, and 9 above, and in further view of Ginsberg et al. (US PAT 4,276,051 A), referred to hereinafter as “Ginsberg”
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Suzuki does not specifically teach the automatic analyzer discussed above further comprising: a pressure pump to pressurize and supply washing water from the first flow channel to the probe, wherein an interior of the probe is washed with washing water pressurized by the pressure pump, as in Claim 10.
However, Ginsberg teaches a respective automated liquid analysis system wherein a pump 180 pressurizes and supplies a wash solution to a probe washer/washing station 58 where probes are washed by a jet/jets of pressurized wash solution, wherein a regulator valve 188 modulates the pressure supplied to the washer 58 ([col. 8, line 19]), and wherein said pressurized wash solution is further flushed through the probe ([col. 9, line 11]). This arrangement thereby allows wash solution to be sprayed onto the outside of a probe, thereby removing contaminants from the outside of said probe, while minimizing wash solution use as an arrangement that provides for dipping of the probe into a wash solution allows the opportunity for contaminants to be left behind.
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus of Suzuki to include a pressure pump to pressurize and supply washing water from the first flow channel to the probe, wherein an interior of the probe is washed with washing water pressurized by the pressure pump, such as suggested by Ginsberg, to allow wash solution to be sprayed onto the outside of a probe, thereby removing contaminants from the outside of said probe, while minimizing wash solution use as an arrangement that provides for dipping of the probe into a wash solution allows the opportunity for contaminants to be left behind, while at the same time still washing the interior of the probe; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further regarding Claim 10, the recitation “…wherein an interior of the probe is washed with washing water pressurized by the pressure pump …” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. – As discussed above, the obvious combination of Suzuki and Ginsburg commensurately provides for a pump and fluidic channels for supplying washing solution to an interior of a probe in as much as positively claimed and required herein.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Laska and Carey, as applied to Claims 1, 6-7, and 9 above, and in further view of Anderson et al. (US 2012/0014405 A1), referred to hereinafter as “Anderson”
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as discussed above. Further, Suzuki does not specifically teach the automatic analyzer discussed above further comprising: a return flow channel in which a regulating valve is installed between the pump and the tank, wherein a pressure in the first flow channel is regulated, as in Claim 11.
However, Anderson teaches a respective automated liquid analysis system wherein a back pressure regulator 79 is installed in a line for discharging solution to waste 57, wherein the back pressure regulator prevents back-flow, thereby preventing exhausted reagent and contaminants from re-entering the system via back-flow ([0039]).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the analysis apparatus of Suzuki to include a back-pressure regulator between the pump and the tank, such as suggested by Anderson, so as to prevent exhausted reagent and contaminants from re-entering the system via back-flow; and would have a reasonable expectation of success therein.
Further regarding Claim 11, the recitation “…wherein a pressure in the first flow channel is regulated…” is drawn to a process recitation. As the claims are drawn to a device, such process recitation is not afforded patentable weight. – As discussed above, The obvious combination of Suzuki and Anderson commensurately provides for a regulating valve installed between the pump and tank that is fully capable of regulating the pressure in the first flow channel in as much as is positively claimed and required herein.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Applicant has overcome the claim objections set forth by the previous office action. Note that new objections are provided above in the body of the action to further clarify Applicant’s washing tank arrangement.
35 USC 112
Applicant’s amendments sufficiently overcome those rejections set forth under 35 USC 112(b) by the prior office action. As such, those rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn herein. – Note that a new grounds of rejection is supplied under 35 USC 112(b) above in the body of the action, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments are on the alleged grounds that Carey merely discloses opening and closing valves during aspiration and dispensing operations and moving probes to wash stations, not the claimed designated washing periods, sequential valve operation, or controller-controlled timing.
Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Carey expressly teaches separately controlled wash operations for individual probes. Carey discloses that the valves V7, V8, V9, and V10 are respectively connected to wash stations 18, 17, 15, and 16 ([0301-0302]). Therein, Carey describes the wash operations in sequence. Probe 535 (an individual probe of the plurality of probes 407, 535, 576, and 653) is positioned in wash station 15 (Fig. 93A), Valve V4 is actuated to supply water through the probe, valve V9 is opened to remove waste fluid, and valve V4 is closed again before exterior wash of the probe. Thereafter, probe 576 is individually washed by actuating valves V5 and V6 and opening valve V10 (Fig. 93A) to supply washing water to the exterior of the probe ([0307-0308]).
The arrangement of Carey further demonstrates that the wash stations are selectively and sequentially operated rather than indiscriminately operated together. A single pump 881 supplies diverter valve V5, which directs water either toward valve V4 and wash station 15, or toward valve V6 and wash station 16. Thus, the common supply is selectively routed to the wash station associated with the particular probe being washed ([0301] and Fig. 93A). – See also Figs. 99-101 showing programmed wash cycles handled by the controller, each cycle being with respect to an individual probe R1, R2, or R3. Therein, ad discussed above in the body of the action, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to provide such an independently-controllable multi-probe arrangement to Suzuki so as to improve throughput, and to ensure only probes needing washing undergo a wash cycle, as in Carey, so as to save water/detergent resources.
Applicant further argues on the alleged grounds that neither Suzuki or Laska makes up for the asserted deficiencies in Carey discussed above. However, as discussed above, no such deficiencies are present in Carey, Carey fully teaching the claimed independently activatable wash stations via valve actuation and having motivation to provide such features in Suzuki. Thus, Applicant’s further assertion that claims depending from Claim 1 are allowable by virtue of dependency is moot, given Applicant’s assertions over deficiencies in Carey and Claim 1 were not persuasive.
Thus, Examiner maintains the rejection of Claims 1 and 6-9 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over at least Suzuki in view of Laska and Carey.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BENJAMIN KASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5501. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
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 visit 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 need assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/B.J.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights