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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is an office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and remarks filed on 12 December 2025. Claims 16-23 and 25-29 are pending in this application. Claim 24 has been cancelled. Claim 29 has been withdrawn. Claims 16-23 and 25-28 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The rejection of claims 17-23 and 25-27 under U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of amendments.
The rejection of claims 16, 17, 19, 20, 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 (US 20100210019 A1) are withdrawn in view of arguments and amendments.
The rejection of claim 18 under U.S.C. § 103 in view of Yoshida, et. al. (WO 2017033910 A1), Yagi (JP 20150110985 A) and Kondou, et. al. (US 20100210019 A1), and in further view of Shimase (US 20040034479 A1) are withdrawn in view of arguments and amendments.
The rejection of claims 21 and 23 under U.S.C. § 103 in view of Yoshida, et. al. (WO 2017033910 A1), Yagi (JP 20150110985 A) and Kondou, et. al. (US 20100210019 A1), and in further view of Shimase (US 20040034479 A1) are withdrawn in view of arguments and amendments.
The rejection of claim 18 under U.S.C. § 103 in view of Yoshida, et. al. (WO 2017033910 A1), Yagi (JP 20150110985 A) and Kondou, et. al. (US 20100210019 A1), and in further view of Kodama, et. al. (JP 2018179801 A1) are withdrawn in view of arguments and amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 13-16, filed 12 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 16 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) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yoshida, et. al. (WO 2017033910 A1) in view of Yagi (JP 20150110985 A) and Kondou, et. al. (US 20100210019 A1)
Examiner notes that while the same art is used, a different approach and combination of the art including slightly different motivation for combining is presented in further detail below.
No further arguments are made for the presently pending dependent claims aside from their dependency on independent claim 16.
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 § 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 16, 17, 19, 20, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, et. al. (WO 2017033910 A1; citations made with respect to attached machine translated and original copy) in view of Yagi (JP 20150110985 A; citations made with respect to attached machine translated and original copy) and Kondou, et. al. (US 20100210019 A1).
With regards to Claim 16, Yoshida teaches an automatic analysis device for improved dispensing accuracy (Abstract). Yoshida teaches the automatic analyzer comprises a dispensing mechanism 105a, 105b with a dispensing nozzles 116a, 116b for aspirating and discharging a liquid (Fig. 1, 3; pg. pg. 09) (a reagent dispensing mechanism having a reagent dispensing nozzle that dispenses, from a reagent container, a reagent to be made to react with the sample).
Yoshida teaches the dispensing mechanism 105a, 105b further comprises capacitance detection mechanisms 117a, 117b that determines liquid level by change in capacitance (Fig. 3; pg. 11) (a capacitance detection unit that detects a capacitance value of the reagent dispensing nozzle) and a pressure sensor 202 that monitors pressure changes within the dispensing mechanism 105a, 105b (Fig. 3; pg. 11) (a pressure sensor that detects a pressure in the reagent dispensing nozzle).
Yoshida further teaches a control unit 115 that controls all operations of dispensing mechanism 105a, 105b including capacitance and pressure sensing as (pg. 12) as well as other analyzer functions such as the reaction mechanism and the spectrometer (pg. 04) (a control unit that controls an operation of each device in the automatic analyzer). Yoshida teaches the control unit 115 is able to:
determine pressure change based on a signal from pressure sensor 202 with pressure determination unit 115c (Fig. 4; pg. 12-13) (determine from a pressure value of the pressure sensor whether there is an error in the dispensing)
determine whether nozzle 116 has reached a liquid level by the capacitance conversion voltage value from the capacitance detection mechanism 117 and liquid level detection unit 115a (Fig. 4; pg. 12-13) (determine from the capacitance value detected by the capacitance detection unit whether the reagent dispensing nozzle reaches a liquid level of the reagent)
determine the next processing step through operation command unit 115f that supplies command signals to mechanisms driving the dispensing mechanism based on the results of the normal/abnormal determination unit 115d (pg. 13) (decide a processing content for the reagent container from results of a pressure determination on whether there is an error in the pressure and a liquid level determination on the detection of the liquid level)
lower the nozzle based on a preset level stored in memory 115b and once lowered to the specified position (S10 to S20 in Figure 10), determine the presence or absence of liquid based on the signal from capacitance detection mechanism 112 (S20 to S20b in Figure 10) (pg. 22-23) (determine from the capacitance value detected by the capacitance detection unit whether the reagent dispensing nozzle reaches a liquid level of the reagent, after the lowering of the reagent dispensing nozzle has been stopped)
after measuring capacitance, the pressure value is determined from pressure sensor 202 and pressure determination unit 115c (Fig. 10; pg. 22-23) (determine from the pressure determination on whether there is an error in the pressure)
Yoshida is silent to upon determining, from the determination of whether there is an error in the pressure, for the same reagent container, whether there is an error for N times, N being defined as N≥2 and for the same reagent container, that there is an error N times in a row, wherein the control unit counts, for every reagent container, the number of times there is an error in the pressure, and at every time, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is no error, the control unit resets the number of times for the reagent container to zero.
Yagi teaches an automatic analyzer that monitors erroneous errors (par. 0002). Yagi teaches an automatic analyzer comprising a prove and pump system configures to aspirate and discharge a liquid with pressure sensors to detect pressure and a control computer that receives detection results from the pressure sensor (par. 0018). The computer comprises an error detection determination unit, an aspiration abnormality detection unit, and an error detection response processing unit (par. 0022).
In one embodiment, Yagi teaches the section step (step S603), the pressure is monitored to determine of the probe is clogged (step S604), and if clogged (step S604 = YES) (a first error in pressure) a cleaning process begins (step S605) and the same sample is retested (step S606) (par. 0037). Yagi teaches during the second aspiration attempt (S606) the liquid level in the sample container is also monitored and data is stored (S607). At this point in the process there is one pressure-related error measurement and liquid level data store. This allows for further action to be taken should a second error in pressure be measured.
After the second aspiration attempt (S406), the volume aspirated undergoes the calculation step (S608) where the formula of paragraph 0038 determines how much liquid should have been aspirated by the probe if there was no pressure error. Next the determination step (S609) determines if the volume aspirated is correct (S609=YES) or incorrect (S609=NO) (Par. 0039). If the determination step (S609) is YES, then the initial pressure error is reset to zero (par. 0039) (for the same reagent container, that there is an error N times in a row, wherein the control unit counts, for every reagent container, the number of times there is an error in the pressure, and at every time, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is no error, the control unit resets the number of times for the reagent container to zero). If the abnormality in pressure persists not as a result of the liquid (but from the probe itself) the error is counted N number of times with each error adding +1 to N (par. 0039). This means in the present embodiment, at least two errors are needed (upon determining, from the determination of whether there is an error in the pressure, for the same reagent container, whether there is an error for N times, N being defined as N≥2). Yagi teaches the computer, through the series of steps, is able to determine a true or false pressure error and progresses by removing the affected probe or terminating the suction step (par. 0039) (upon determining, from the determination on whether there is an error in the pressure, for the same reagent container, that there is an error N times in a row, and upon determining from the result of the liquid level detection determination that a liquid level is detected, perform as the processing content, processing in which…). Yagi teaches this abnormality verification process minimizes stopping time from false error reports by confirming if the pressure error is real or not (true vs. false error), and when a true error occurs, moving on to the sample or probe, and when false continuing the analysis process (par. 0028).
Examiner notes while the examples of Yagi are for a clogged probe changing the liquid aspiration pressure (resulting in an increased pressure), one of ordinary skill in the art will also recognize an empty aspiration (resulting in a decreased pressure) will also result in a pressure outside of the accepted range triggering an error.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of Yoshida to perform the verification process of Yagi in order to minimize instrument down time from false errors and confirm true errors. Because both devices center around the determining an error as a result of a pressure measurement in a dispensing nozzle of an automatic analyzer, modifying the control unit to have an error verification process as provided by Yagi, provides likewise sought functionality with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
While modified Yoshida teaches upon determining, from the determination on whether there is an error in the pressure, for the same reagent container, that there is an error N times in a row, and upon determining from the result of the liquid level detection determination that a liquid level is detected, perform as the processing content, does occur, the next step in processing in which the reagent container is made unavailable is not disclosed my modified Yoshida in view of Yagi.
Kondou teaches a sample analyzer that holds multiple reagent containers (Abstract). Kondou teaches an analyzer comprising a reagent container holder 71 that holds at least two reagent containers 73 of the same type of reagent, a measurement unit for measuring a reaction with a sample, and an information processing unit (control apparatus 4) 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 41 of control apparatus 4 controls the steps as seen in Figure 8 that decides if the reagent container is capable of use by determining the liquid level in the container (par. 0062-0063, 0065-0068). Should the liquid level not be enough, the CPU 41 controls movement to the next reagent container (Fig. 8; par. 0068) (processing in which the reagent container is made unavailable). Kondou teaches this allows for the device to continue to analyze samples even when one reagent container is no longer available to use (par. 0005).
Combining the ideas, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi teaches a system in which an error is monitored for and verified and Kondou teaches a system in which an unusable container (due to an error) is removed from the analysis process. Therefore, once combined, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi can verify an error in a container and then remove the container from the processing steps as taught by Kondou so the remaining analysis steps can be performed.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the error verification steps of modified Yoshida with the error causing container as taught by Kondou in order to continue sample analysis. Because both devices center around determining an error in an automatic analyzer combining the error verification steps of the control unit with the container removal step as provided by Kondou, provides likewise sought functionality in which the combination would yield predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
With regards to Claim 17, modified Yoshida teaches an abnormality is recorded with no data output when there is an error in capacitance detection no matter the pressure sensor results (Yoshida, Fig. 13; pg. 26).
Modified Yoshida is silent to wherein when it is determined, from the result of the detection determination, that no liquid level is detected, regardless of the result of determination whether there is an error by the pressure sensor, the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is unavailable.
Kondou teaches that if the liquid level measured in the container is less than the amount needed in a predetermined step, CPU 41 instructs the movement to a second reagent container (Fig. 8; par. 0068). Kondou teaches solely the liquid level measurement results determining this operation (wherein when it is determined, from the result of the detection determination, that no liquid level is detected, regardless of the result of determination whether there is an error by the pressure sensor, the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is unavailable). Kondou teaches this allows for the device to continue to analyze samples even when one reagent container is no longer available to use (par. 0005).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the error verification process of modified Yoshida to stop the use of a container when a capacitance error is detected as taught by Kondou in order to continue sample analysis with other reagent containers. Because both devices center around determining an error in an automatic analyzer modifying the error verification steps of the control unit with the container removal step as provided by Kondou, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
With regards to Claim 19, modified Yoshida teaches an abnormality is recorded with no data output when there is an error in capacitance detection no matter the pressure sensor results (Yoshida, Fig. 13; pg. 26).
Modified Yoshida is silent to wherein when it is determined, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is an error, and when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that no liquid level is detected, the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is unavailable.
Kondou teaches that if the liquid level measured in the container is less than the amount needed in a predetermined step, CPU 41 instructs the movement to a second reagent container (Fig. 8; par. 0068). Kondou teaches solely the liquid level measurement results determining this operation (wherein when it is determined, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is an error, and when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that no liquid level is detected, the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is unavailable). Kondou teaches this allows for the device to continue to analyze samples even when one reagent container is no longer available to use (par. 0005).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the error verification process of modified Yoshida to stop the use of a container when a capacitance error is detected as taught by Kondou in order to continue sample analysis with other reagent containers. Because both devices center around determining an error in an automatic analyzer modifying the error verification steps of the control unit with the container removal step as provided by Kondou, provides likewise sought functionality with reasonable expectation of success. MPEP 2143(I)(G).
With regards to Claim 20, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi teaches one source of the pressure abnormality can be due to clogging (Yagi, par. 0035). For clogging errors, the abnormality can be measured a set number of times (Yagi, par. 0035, 0039) (wherein when it is determined, by discriminating an error due to clogging of the reagent dispensing nozzle, an error due to empty aspiration, and no error, and from the determination whether there is an error for the same reagent container, that there is an error due to the clogging N times in a row, the N being defined as N≥2, and when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that a liquid level is detected). Modified Yoshida in view of Kondou teaches the control apparatus determine a container is not usable, the analyzer is to move on to the next container (Kondou, par. 0068) (the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is unavailable)
With regards to Claim 22, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi teaches after confirming a liquid is present with the liquid level detection mechanism begins to aspirate the liquid and check the pressure for any abnormalities (Yagi, par. 0037) (and when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that a liquid level is detected). Yagi teaches the pressure via an aspiration of the liquid will be tested until a set threshold number of errors is reached, and if the corrected pressure threshold is not measured, the liquid was not aspirated, and the operation stops by the analysis stop unit (Yagi, par. 0037-0039) (when it is determined, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is an error due to the empty aspiration... the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which use of the reagent container is temporarily stopped).
With regards to Claim 26, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi teaches the same container will continue being tested despite an abnormality reading until a threshold number of abnormalities readings is reached (Yagi, par. 0039) (when it is determined, from the determination whether there is an error for the same reagent container, that there is an error N - 1 times or less in a row, the N being defined as N ≥ 2, and when it is determined from the result of the liquid level detection determination that a liquid level is detected, the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is available).
With regards to Claim 27, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi teaches the aspiration process begins by detecting the liquid level before pressure is measured (Yagi, par. 0037) and then the same container will continue being tested despite an abnormality reading until a threshold number of abnormalities readings is reached (Yagi, par. 0039) (wherein when it is determined, by discriminating an error due to clogging of the reagent dispensing nozzle, an error due to empty aspiration, and no error, and from the determination whether there is an error for the same reagent container, that there is an error due to the clogging N - 1 times or less in a row, the N being defined as N≥2, and when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that a liquid level is detected, the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is available).
With regards to Claim 28, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi teaches upon the section step (step S603), the pressure is monitored to determine of the probe is clogged (step S604), and if clogged (step S604 = YES) (a first error in pressure) a cleaning process begins (step S605) and the same sample is retested (step S606) (Yagi, par. 0037). After the second aspiration attempt, if the abnormality in pressure persists not as a result of the liquid (but from the probe itself) the error is counted N number of times with each error adding +1 to N until N reaches a predetermined number for each container to be analyzed (Yagi, par. 0039) (wherein the continuous number of times N when there is a pressure error, the N being counted by the control unit, is set for every analysis item).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, Yagi, and Kondou, et. al. as applied to Claim 16 above, in further view of Shimase (US 20040034479 A1; previously recited in OA dated 1 July 2025).
With regards to Claim 18, Modified Yoshida teaches the limitations of claim 16, as seen above.
Modified Yoshida is silent to when it is determined, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is no error, and when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that no liquid level is detected, the control unit performs, as the processing content, 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 that can be filled with a liquid and that is extends a calculated distance into a container holding a liquid in order to aspirate the liquid (par. 0056-0057). Shimase teaches that pressure is monitored through the duration of the aspirating and dispensing process (par. 0062) and ultimately a distance in which the probe should encounter the liquid is calculated (par. 0063). Shimase teaches that this distance threshold determines the liquid level, and as seen in the step outline in Figure 12, even if the liquid level is not within the determined threshold (and when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that no liquid level is detected) the pressure is monitored and can still be within a normal threshold (see Fig. 12, S7, YES) and still set off an alarm that the device has encountered an error (S8) and stopping the process (the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is available, and causes the automatic analyzer to be stopped). Shimase teaches this process prevents abnormal dispensing and determine the type of abnormality that is causing the error (par. 0009)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the liquid level determination processing steps of Yoshida to include a processing step of testing the pressure as taught by Shimase in order to prevent abnormal dispensing and to determine the type of abnormality should one occur. Because both device deal with the automated aspiration and dispensing of a reagent from one container to another, substituting the processing steps to Sakagami to include pressure sensing steps of Shimase, provides likewise sought after functionality that would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2143 (I)(A).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, Yagi, and Kondou, et. al. as applied to Claim 16 above, in further view of Shimase (US 20040034479; previously recited in OA dated 1 July 2025).
With regards to Claim 21, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi if an abnormality occurs, the volume aspirated is still determined to see if anything aspirated is within a predetermined range (Yagi, par. 0037-0039). If an abnormality is present, the aspiration and measurement step is repeated until a preset threshold number is reached (Yagi, par. 0039) (when it is determined, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is an error due to the empty aspiration). Modified Yoshida in view of Kondou, as outlined in Claim 16 above, teaches that if the liquid level measured in the container is less than the amount needed in a predetermined step, CPU 41 instructs the movement to a second reagent container (Kondou, Fig. 8; par. 0068) (the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is unavailable).
Modified Yoshida is silent to when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that no liquid level is detected.
Shimase teaches a dispensing apparatus that detects abnormalities (Abstract). Shimase teaches the dispensing device comprises a probe with a syringe that can be filled with a liquid and that is extends a calculated distance into a container holding a liquid in order to aspirate the liquid (par. 0056-0057). Shimase teaches that pressure is monitored through the duration of the aspirating and dispensing process (par. 0062) and ultimately a distance in which the probe should encounter the liquid is calculated (par. 0063). Shimase teaches that this distance threshold determines the liquid level, and as seen in the step outline in Figure 12, even if the liquid level is not within the determined threshold pressure can still be monitored before stopping the operation (when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that no liquid level is detected). Shimase teaches this process prevents abnormal dispensing and determine the type of abnormality that is causing the error (par. 0009).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the liquid level determination processing steps of modified Yoshida to include a processing step of testing the pressure as taught by Shimase in order to prevent abnormal dispensing and to determine the type of abnormality should one occur. Because both device deal with the automated aspiration and dispensing of a reagent from one container to another, substituting the processing steps to modified Yoshida to include pressure sensing steps of Shimase, provides likewise sought after functionality that would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2148 (I)(A).
With regards to Claim 23, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi teaches abnormalities will be measured until a predetermined threshold is reached (Yagi, par. 0039) and if the corresponding volume measurement is also not reached the process will stop and the error is likely due to clogging (Yagi, par. 0037-0039) (or when it is determined, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is an error due to the clogging).
Modified Yoshida is silent to when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that no liquid level is detected, the control unit performs, as the processing content, 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 that can be filled with a liquid and that is extends a calculated distance into a container holding a liquid in order to aspirate the liquid (par. 0056-0057). Shimase teaches that pressure is monitored through the duration of the aspirating and dispensing process (par. 0062) and ultimately a distance in which the probe should encounter the liquid is calculated (par. 0063). Shimase teaches that this distance threshold determines the liquid level, and as seen in the step outline in Figure 12, even if the liquid level is not within the determined threshold pressure can still be monitored before stopping the operation (and when it is determined from the result of the detection determination that no liquid level is detected, the control unit performs, as the processing content, processing in which the reagent container is available, and causes the automatic analyzer to be stopped).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the liquid level determination processing steps of modified Yoshida to include a processing step of testing the pressure as taught by Shimase in order to prevent abnormal dispensing and to determine the type of abnormality should one occur. Because both device deal with the automated aspiration and dispensing of a reagent from one container to another, substituting the processing steps to modified Yoshida to include pressure sensing steps of Shimase, provides likewise sought after functionality that would have yielded predictable results. MPEP § 2148 (I)(A).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida, Yagi, and Kondou, et. al. as applied to Claim 16 above, in further view of Kodama, et. al. (JP 2018179801 A1; previously recited in OA dated 1 July 2025).
With regards to Claim 25, modified Yoshida in view of Yagi teaches the error count is able to reset the count (see claim 16 above).
Modified Yoshida is silent to the control unit counts, for every reagent container, the number of times when it is determined, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is an error, and when the automatic analyzer makes a transition to standby, the control unit resets the number of times for every reagent container to zero.
Kodama teaches when an error is encountered, the control unit prompts the error log storage to generate and save the error (pg. 6, par. 08 to top of pg. 6) (to the control unit counts, for every reagent container, the number of times when it is determined, from the determination whether there is an error, that there is an error). Kodama teaches in the event of a loss of power supply to drive unit 40, the generated error is removed (pg. 9, par. 03). This suggests that if normal operation is interrupted or ended as going into standby mode, the errors will be removed (and when the automatic analyzer makes a transition to standby, the control unit resets the number of times for every reagent container to zero). Kodama teaches the error confirmation process reduces the manual workload to improve efficiency (pg. 2, par. 01).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of modified Yoshida to include in the saved error data and remove errors when the analysis process is interrupted as taught by Kodama in order to reduce the manual workload and improve device efficiency. Because both device deal with the automated aspiration and dispensing of a reagent from one container to another and monitoring for errors, modifying the control unit of modified Yoshida to include saved errors and removing errors after interrupting or ending the process as provided by Kodama, provides likewise sought after functionality that would have reasonable expectation of success. MPEP § 2148 (I)(G).
Conclusion
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