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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 12-13, 15-19 and 21-22 are pending and under examination.
Claims 1-11, 14 and 20 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
New claim objections have been set forth.
Based on the amended claims, new 112(b) rejection(s) have been set forth.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, received on 12/29/2025, the previous prior art rejection over Denninger has been modified to address the amended claims (see below).
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 line 5 recites “determining i a specimen tube holder” which appears to be a clerical mistake. The examiner requests applicant remove “i” from the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 15-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “the light emitting body”. Claim 1 line 2 has been amended to recite “a plurality of light emitting bodies”. It is unclear which light emitting body among the plurality of light emitting bodies applicant is referring to as “the” light emitting body. A similar rejection is also made over claim 16.
Claim 17 refers to “the specimen having a coincident identification information” and “the specimen designated in advance”. However, neither “a specimen having a coincident identification information” or “a specimen designated in advance” have been set forth in the claim(s) and it is unclear how applicant is intending to distinguish each of the respective specimens.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 12-18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denninger et al. (US 2014/0231217; already of record – hereinafter “Denninger”), and further in view of Tsai (US 2003/0139847; already of record – hereinafter “Tsai”).
Regarding claim 12, Denninger disclose a specimen conveyance device (Denninger; fig. 1, #100, [0063]) comprising:
a plurality of conveyance blocks (Denninger; fig. 1, #23, [0068]), each of which includes a plurality of light emitting bodies (Denninger disclose the transport plane may comprise one or more displays, for example, LEDs, indicating the status of the transport plane. LEDs may, for example, be arranged below translucent areas of the transport plane. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040]. Denninger further disclose each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electromagnetic actuators 5; fig. 2, [0081-0082]. Accordingly, each of the plurality of conveyance blocks 23 includes a plurality of light emitting bodies.) and conveys a specimen tube holder (Denninger; fig. 1, #1, [0065]) that holds a specimen tube storing a specimen (Denninger; fig. 1, #3, [0063-0064); and
a control unit (Denninger; figs. 1, 3 & 10, #38/39, [0042, 0065, 0077, 0083, 0108-0109]) configured to control the conveyance of the specimen tube holder by the conveyance block (Denninger; figs. 1 & 3; [0065, 0083]), wherein the control unit is configured to:
cause a light emitting body, among the plurality of light emitting bodies, of a conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing a processing specimen is present to emit light in a different state from the light emitting bodies of the other conveyance blocks (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]), and
wherein the light emitting body of the conveyance block in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing the processing specimen is present emits light, while the light emitting bodies of the other conveyance blocks do not emit light, or the light emitting body of the conveyance block in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing the processing specimen is present do not emit light, while the light emitting devices of the other conveyance blocks emit light (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator or the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]).
Denninger does not explicitly disclose the specimen container stores a priority processing specimen, where the light emitting body in which the priority processing specimen is present emits light, or the alternative, where the light emitting body in which the priority processing specimen do not emit light.
However, Tsai teach the analogous art of a container (Tsai; fig. 1, #20, [0014]), a control unit (Tsai teach each a data card 30 mounted to each container 20; [0014]. The data card comprise a microcomputer 50 that includes a microprocessor. The data card is configured to communicate with the local processor when the container to which it is mounted is engaged with the corresponding processing station canopy; [0016]. The communication means may include pairs of optically coupled transmitters and receivers; fig. 3, #50, [0016]), and a plurality of light emitting bodies (Tsai; fig. 2, #37,#38, #39, [0017]), wherein the control unit is configured to cause a light emitting body, among the plurality of light emitting bodies, in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing a priority specimen is present to emit light in a different light emitting state from the light emitting bodies (Tsai teach the light emitting bodies emit light when the container is assigned high priority processing and do not emit light when the container is a low priority processing; [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit, conveyance blocks, and light emitting bodies of Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state when the container is a priority processing specimen, as taught by Tsai, because Tsai teach control unit and plurality of light emitting bodies configuration to emit light in a different light emitting state based on the assigned priority of a specimen container allows a conditional check to be performed by an operator through the visual state of the plurality of light emitting bodies (Tsai; [0018]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Tsai and Denninger both teach controlling the state of a light emitting body to provide an operator with information about a specimen tube holder.
Regarding claim 13, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the conveyance surface of the conveyance block is made of a material that transmits light emitted by the light emitting body, and wherein the light emitting body is arranged vertically below the conveyance surface (Denninger; [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the light emitting body is configured to emit light of different wavelengths (The modification of the control unit, conveyance blocks, and light emitting bodies of Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state when the container is a priority processing specimen, as taught by Tsai, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Tsai further teach the light emitting body may be configured to emit light of different wavelengths; [0020]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the light emitting body is configured emit light at different intensities (Denninger disclose the light emitting body can indicate the status by flashing; [0040]. Tsai additionally teach the light emitting body may be configured into a flashing state; [0019])).
Regarding claim 17, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the light emitting bodies to emit light in different light emitting states in the conveyance block on which the specimen having a coincident identification information with the specimen designated in advance is present and in the other conveyance blocks, or sets one of the light emitting bodies to at non-light emitting state (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator or the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]. Further, the modification of the control unit, conveyance blocks, and light emitting bodies of Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state when the container is a priority processing specimen, as taught by Tsai, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above.).
Regarding claim 18, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12 above, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the light emitting bodies in a first conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, to emit light in a different light emitting state than light emitting bodies in other conveyance blocks, upon determining a number of specimen tube holders greater than a certain number or more are present in the first conveyance block (Denninger disclose the transport plane may comprise one or more displays, for example, LEDs, indicating the status of the transport plane. LEDs may, for example, be arranged below translucent areas of the transport plane. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040]. Denninger further disclose each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electromagnetic actuators 5; fig. 2, [0081-0082]. Accordingly, the conveyance block is configured to change the light emitting state of each electromagnetic actuator having a carrier and/or sample container on the conveyance block).
21. (Currently amended) A method for conveying a specimen stored in a specimen tube held by a specimen tube holder (Denninger; figs. 1-3 & 10, #1, #3, [0006, 0063-0065]), comprising:
conveying the specimen tube holder by a plurality of conveyance blocks (Denninger; fig. 1, #23, [0068]), each of which includes a plurality of light emitting bodies (Denninger disclose the transport plane may comprise one or more displays, for example, LEDs, indicating the status of the transport plane. LEDs may, for example, be arranged below translucent areas of the transport plane. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040]. Denninger further disclose each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electromagnetic actuators 5; fig. 2, [0081-0082]. Accordingly, each of the plurality of conveyance blocks 23 includes a plurality of light emitting bodies.); and
causing a light emitting body, among the plurality of light emitting bodies, of a conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing a processing specimen is present to emit light in a different light emitting state from the light emitting bodies of the other conveyance blocks (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]), and
wherein the light emitting body of the conveyance block in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing the processing specimen is present emits light, while the light emitting bodies of the other conveyance blocks do not emit light, or the light emitting body of the conveyance block in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing the processing specimen is present do not emit light, while the light emitting devices of the other conveyance blocks emit light (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The visualizing device may be an LCD monitor. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator or the position of a specific container carrier; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]).
Denninger does not explicitly disclose the specimen container stores a priority processing specimen, where the light emitting body in which the priority processing specimen is present emits light, or the alternative, where the light emitting body in which the priority processing specimen do not emit light.
However, Tsai teach the analogous art of a container (Tsai; fig. 1, #20, [0014]), a control unit (Tsai teach each a data card 30 mounted to each container 20; [0014]. The data card comprise a microcomputer 50 that includes a microprocessor. The data card is configured to communicate with the local processor when the container to which it is mounted is engaged with the corresponding processing station canopy; [0016]. The communication means may include pairs of optically coupled transmitters and receivers; fig. 3, #50, [0016]), and a plurality of light emitting bodies (Tsai; fig. 2, #37,#38, #39, [0017]), wherein the control unit is configured to cause a light emitting body, among the plurality of light emitting bodies, in which the specimen tube holder that holds the specimen container storing a priority specimen is present to emit light in a different light emitting state from the light emitting bodies (Tsai teach the light emitting bodies emit light when the container is assigned high priority processing and do not emit light when the container is a low priority processing; [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit, conveyance blocks, and light emitting bodies of Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state when the container is a priority processing specimen, as taught by Tsai, because Tsai teach control unit and plurality of light emitting bodies configuration to emit light in a different light emitting state based on the assigned priority of a specimen container allows a conditional check to be performed by an operator through the visual state of the plurality of light emitting bodies (Tsai; [0018]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Tsai and Denninger both teach controlling the state of a light emitting body to provide an operator with information about a specimen tube holder.
Regarding claim 22, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to 22 above, wherein the specimen tube holder moves on an upper surface of the conveyance block by rotation of wheels or by an electromagnetic actuator (Denninger; figs. 1-3, [0065-0067]).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denninger, in view of Tsai, and further in view of Andrews et al. (US Patent No. 6,043,880; already of record – hereinafter “Andrews”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Denninger teach the specimen conveyance device according to claim 12, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the light emitting bodies in a first conveyance block, among the conveyance blocks, to emit light in a different light emitting state than light emitting bodies in other conveyance blocks (Denninger disclose visualizing device 39 to visualize the presence and position of container carriers 1 located on the transport plane 4, and the presence and position of sample containers 3 located on the transport plane including information regarding corresponding samples. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of … the position of a specific container carrier, … and the like; [0040, 0042, 0077, 0109]. Each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electro-magnetic actuators with a corresponding LED; fig. 2, [0040, 0081-0082]. Accordingly, the conveyance block is configured to change the light emitting state of each electromagnetic actuator having a carrier and/or sample container on the conveyance block).
Modified Denninger does not teach emitting light in a different state upon determining a specimen tube holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present in the first conveyance block.
However, Andrews teach the analogous art of a specimen conveyance device (Andrews; fig. 6A, #208, col. 9, lines 21-31), a control unit (Andrews; fig. 5, col. 9 lines 21-31), and one or more light emitting bodies (Andrews; fig. 5, #204, col. 9 lines 7-20), where upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance is present, the light emitting bodies change their state (Andrews; col. 15 line 60 through col. 16 line 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit and light emitting bodies of modified Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state upon determining a specimen holder for which a certain amount of time or more has elapsed without conveyance, as taught by Andrews, because Andrews teach the control unit and light emitting body that change state when a sample holder is idle for more than a certain amount of time is indicative of an error and the change in light emitting state alters an operator of the error in the conveyance mechanism (Andrews; col. 15 line 60 through col. 16 line 4). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Denninger and Andrews both teach light emitting bodies configured to change state to relay information to an operator.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/29/2025, have been fully considered but were not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-12 of their remarks toward the 103 rejection over Denninger in view of Tsai, that Denninger does not disclose causing LEDs of a specific conveyance block holding a container storing a priority processing specimen to emit light in a different light emitting state from LEDs of other conveyance blocks, and Tsai does not cure the deficiencies of Denninger because in Tsai, the LEDs on the data card are moving with the container and the LED state of each card is only established by a set of instructions from the individual microcomputers with the cards themselves rather than from a control unit controlling all of the light emitting bodies of the conveyance blocks. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Absent the term “priority”, Denninger is cited for teaching all of the claimed limitations and the associated functions of the light emitting bodies with respect to the specimen. That is, Denninger disclose a control unit configured to cause LEDs of a specific conveyance block holding a container storing a processing specimen to emit light in a different light emitting state from LEDs of other conveyance blocks. Specifically, Denninger disclose the transport plane 4 made of up conveyance blocks 23 which comprise one or more displays, for example, LEDs, indicating the status of the transport plane. LEDs may, for example, be arranged below translucent areas of the transport plane. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040]. The Office Action does not rely on Tsai for teaching placement of the LEDs or a control unit to control the LEDs on the conveyance blocks. Tsai is cited for teaching “a priority specimen” and the associated function of the light emitting bodies with respect to the priority specimen. In this case, Tsai teach a plurality of light emitting bodies that emit light when the container is assigned high priority processing and do not emit light when the container is a low priority processing; [0019]. Thus, the combination of Denninger in view of Tsai teach the claimed priority specimen and the associated function of the plurality of light emitting bodies with respect to the priority specimen, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit, conveyance blocks, and light emitting bodies of Denninger to be configured to emit light in a different light emitting state when the container is a priority processing specimen, as taught by Tsai, because Tsai teach control unit and plurality of light emitting bodies configuration to emit light in a different light emitting state based on the assigned priority of a specimen container allows a conditional check to be performed by an operator through the visual state of the plurality of light emitting bodies (Tsai; [0018]).
Regarding applicant’s argument on page 11 with respect to hindsight bias, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding applicant’s argument on page 9 that Denninger does not disclose a plurality of light emitting bodies in each conveyance block, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Denninger disclose the transport plane may comprise one or more displays, for example, LEDs, indicating the status of the transport plane. LEDs may, for example, be arranged below translucent areas of the transport plane. The LEDs can indicate the status, for example, by flashing, of a corresponding electromagnetic actuator, the position of a specific container carrier; [0040]. Denninger further disclose each conveyance block 23 comprise a plurality of electromagnetic actuators 5; fig. 2, [0081-0082]. Accordingly, each of the plurality of conveyance blocks 23 includes a plurality of light emitting bodies.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
Ferkany et al. (US Patent No. 4,928,453) disclose a transfer path on a work station comprising a monitoring means that indicates when a sample holder has reached a predetermined position on the workstation support surface.
Hecht (US 2015/0014125) disclose a plurality of conveyance blocks comprising an LED that is configured to emit light when a sample holder approaches.
Huber et al. (US 2016/0341751; already of record) disclose a plurality of conveyance blocks each of which include a plurality of light emitting bodies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A THOMPSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-0648. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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.
E-mail communication Authorization
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.
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.
/C.A.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798