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 15 April 2026. Claims 16-17 and 25-30 are pending in this application. Claims 1-15 and 24 has been previously cancelled. Claims 18-23 have been newly cancelled. Claim 29 has been previously withdrawn. Claim 30 has been newly added. Claims 16-23, 25-28, and 30 are being examined herein.
Status of Objections and Rejections
The interpretation of claim 16 under U.S.C. § 112(f) for “a capacitance detection unit” and “a control unit” are maintained.
The rejection of claims 16-17 and 26-28 under U.S.C. § 103 in view of Yoshida, et. al. (WO 2017033910 A1) in view of Yagi (JP 20150110985 A) and Kondou, et. al. (US 20100210019 A1) are withdrawn in view of amendments.
The rejection of claims 18-23 under U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of claim 25 under U.S.C. § 103 in view of Yoshida, et. al. (WO 2017033910 A1) in view of Yagi (JP 20150110985 A) and Kondou, et. al. (US 20100210019 A1) and in further view of Kodama, et. al. (JP 2018179801 A1) is withdrawn in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pages 9-16, filed 15 April 2026, with respect to claims 16-23, 25-28, and 30 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 16-23, 25-28, and 30 has been withdrawn.
See below for further explanation.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“a capacitance detection unit that detects a capacitance...” in claim 16, line 5. Based on the fact the capacitance detection unit is attached to a liquid dispensing nozzle, the capacitance detection unit is interpreted to be a liquid level sensor or other equivalents thereof (claim 16).
“a control unit that controls an operation...” in claim 16, line 9. Based on the specification, the control unit is interpreted to be a computer processor with memory or equivalent thereof (par. 0037).
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-17, 25-28, and 30 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 16-17, 25-18, and 30 recite several instances of phrases containing “an error.” There are multiple types of errors recited in the claims, including but not limited to, “an error,” “an error in the pressure,” “an error in the dispensing,” “an error due to the clogging,” “an error due to the empty aspiration,” “a pressure error” throughout the claim set. The phrase “the error” (with or without further clarifiers) is not used in the claim set and results in confusion in which errors are the same or different resulting in confusion in which errors or combination of errors result in what processing content is determined by the control unit to be used. This applies to claims 16-17, 25-28, and 30.
Claim 16 recites “a liquid level” in lines 40 and 50. “A liquid level” is previously recited in line 15 of the same claim. It is unclear if these are the same or different liquid levels. Examiner believes these are the same liquid levels and will be examined as such. See below for proposed amendments.
Examiner notes this excludes the rejections for the “an error” language discusses above.
Claims 17, 25-28, and 30 are rejected based on their dependence to claim 16.
Claim 26 recites “a liquid level” in line 6 of the claim. “A liquid level” is previously recited in claim 16. It is unclear if these are the same or different liquid levels. Examiner believes these are the same liquid levels and will be examined as such.
Claim 27 recites “a liquid level” in line 7 of the claim. “A liquid level” is previously recited in claim 16. It is unclear if these are the same or different liquid levels. Examiner believes these are the same liquid levels and will be examined as such.
Prior Art
As best as the examiner understands, the prior art does not disclose nor render obvious all of the cumulative limitations of claim 16, with particular attention to the limitation “the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is available, and causes the automatic analyzer to be stopped” in combination with the other limitation of claim 16.
Regarding claim 16, the closest prior art is considered to be Yoshida, et. al. (WO 2017033910 A1), Yagi (JP 20150110985 A), Kondou, et. al. (US 20100210019 A1), and Shimase (US 20040034479 A1) (all cited in previous Office Actions; citations to Yoshida and Yagi made with respect to previously provided English machine translations and original copies).
Yoshida teaches an automatic analysis device for improved dispensing accuracy (Abstract). Yoshida teaches the automatic analysis device comprises a dispensing mechanism with associated capacitance detection means and pressure sensor (Fig. 3). Yoshida additionally teaches a control unit that controls all operations of dispensing mechanism 105a, 105b including capacitance and pressure sensing as (pg. 12) as well as other analyzer functions (pg. 04). Specifically, the control unit is able to determine changes in pressure and capacitance and determine a next processing step based on the measured pressure and capacitance values (Fig. 4; pg. 12-13).
Yoshida is silent to counting number of errors (N times in a row) and wherein the processing steps include “processing in which the reagent container is unavailable” and “processing in which the reagent container is available and causes the automatic analyzer to be stopped.”
Yagi teaches an automatic analyzer that monitors erroneous errors (par. 0002). Yagi teaches the automatic analyzer comprises a system for aspirating and discharging a liquid with pressure sensors to detect pressure and a control computer that receives detection results from the pressure sensor (par. 0018). Yagi teaches the computer comprises an error detection determination unit, an aspiration abnormality detection unit, and an error detection response processing unit to track/count errors (par. 0022).
Yagi is silent to further processing steps, specifically “processing in which the reagent container is unavailable” and “processing in which the reagent container is available and causes the automatic analyzer to be stopped.”
Kondou teaches a sample analyzer that holds multiple reagent containers (Abstract). Kondou teaches an analyzer comprising a reagent container holder and an information processing unit (CPU) that performs operations including but not limited to receiving instructions and controlling instrument processes (Fig. 2, 4; par. 0007-0010, 0025-0029). Kondou teaches the CPU determines if the reagent container is not useable based on a capacitance value, and if it is determined that the reagent container is not useable, the CPU moves to the next reagent container (Fig. 8; par. 0065-0068).
Kondou is silent to the additional processing step, “processing in which the reagent container is available and causes the automatic analyzer to be stopped.”
Shimase teaches a dispensing apparatus that detects abnormalities (Abstract). Shimase teaches the dispensing device comprises a probe with a syringe for aspiration and dispensing a liquid, wherein the pressure is monitored through the duration of the aspirating and dispensing process as well as monitoring the liquid level based on distance and determines a threshold (par. 0056-0057, 0062-0063). Shimase teaches that this distance threshold determines the liquid level (Figure 12) and even if the liquid level is not within the determined threshold, the pressure is monitored and can still be within a normal threshold (see Fig. 12, S7, YES) and set off an alarm that the device has encountered an error (S8) and stopping the process.
Shimase is silent to the processing step of “processing in which the reagent container is available” when the analyzer is stopped.
The prior art of record, namely Yoshida, Yagi, Kondou, and Shimase, do not teach or fairly disclose the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is available, and causes the automatic analyzer to be stopped in combination with the other limitations of the claim. Further the prior art of record, namely Yoshida, Yagi, Kondou, and Shimase, lack the motivation to modify or combine or substitute to arrive at the disclosed apparatus of claim 16. Specifically, each teach an analyzer with a dispensing nozzle that is controlled by a control unit. However, each teach the control unit determines specific processing steps based on specific sensor/measurement conditions but fail to teach or disclose that when the when the analyzer is stopped, that the reagent containers are still marked as “available.” The claims are therefore considered to be patentably distinguished from the prior art of record.
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 MADISON T HERBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30a-5:00p.
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.
/M.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights