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 .
Claim Status
Claim 1-4, 7-9, and 11-12 are pending and under examination.
Claims 5-6 and 10 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Based on the amended claims, received 01/20/2026, new claim objections have been set forth.
The claim amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejection(s) previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 11/26/2025. Accordingly, the 112(b) rejection(s) have been withdrawn.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, the previous prior art rejection over Yamashita has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 24 recites “a selection of to perform” which appears to be a grammatical/clerical mistake which should recite “a selection to perform”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al. (JP 2019-203723A – hereinafter “Yamashita; already of record) where US 2021/0062553 is used as the corresponding document, in view of Taki et al. (US 2013/0311243 – hereinafter “Taki”; already of record), in view of Takata et al. (US 2015/0206085 – hereinafter “Takata”; already of record), in view of Calem et al. (US 2002/0055927 – hereinafter “Calem”), and in view of Fujita (US 2008/0050280 – hereinafter “Fujita”; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashita disclose an automatic analyzer (Yamashita; fig. 1, #1, [0054]) comprising:
a plurality of processing units that require maintenance work using a plurality of maintenance work tools, the plurality of processing units including at least a first processing unit and a second processing unit (Yamashita disclose the automatic analyzer 1 comprises a plurality of processing units including reagent disk 2, reagent containers 3, transport means 5, sample dispensing means 6, reaction container supply means 7, reaction container transport means 8, incubator 9, sample dispensing chips 10, sample dispensing chip buffer 11, reaction container waste hole 12, reaction solution stirring means 13, reaction containers 14, reagent dispensing pipette 15, stirring means 16, cleaning means 17, reaction solution aspiration nozzle 18, and detecting means 19; figs. 1-2, [0051-0069] which may collectively be referred to as the operation mechanism group 29 that require maintenance in the form of cleaning or replacing parts; [0073]),
a device cover for covering the first processing unit (Yamashita; figs. 2-3, #4, [0054]);
an analysis unit for analyzing a specimen (Yamashita; figs 1-2, #19, [0068]);
a display unit (Yamashita; fig. 1, #100, [0070]);
and a control unit (Yamashita; fig. 1, #100, [0070]) configured to control the plurality of processing units, the analysis unit, and the display unit (Yamashita; fig. 1, #100, [0049-0070]),
wherein the first processing unit and the second processing unit are processing units where maintenance work is performed by using a first tool among the plurality of maintenance work tools (Yamashita disclose the plurality of processing units 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 above, collectively referred to as operation mechanism group 29, require maintenance work be performed using a cleaning tool in the form of a cloth or a brush; [0127]),
wherein one or more third processing units include a dispensing mechanism having a dispensing probe for dispensing a specimen or a reagent, and the maintenance work for the one or more third processing units, that include the dispensing mechanism, is performed by using a second tool among the plurality of maintenance work tools (Yamashita disclose sample dispensing means 6; [0062], reagent dispensing means 15; [0066], reaction solution aspiration nozzle 18; [0068] which have surfaces that may be cleaned by a cloth or a brush by an operator; [0073, 0127]),
wherein the control unit is configured to (Yamashita; fig. 1, #100, [0070]):
cause after the dispensing probe is retracted, perform a process of ascending the dispensing probe (Yamashita disclose the sample dispensing probe is moved above chip buffer 11 to grip dispensing chip 10; [0060], moved to a region above the sample to suck the sample into the dispensing chip 10, moves above the reaction container 14, and above waste hole 12; [0062]. Accordingly, the sample dispensing probe is controlled to retract and ascend vertically to grip the dispensing chip 10 and suck the sample. Likewise, reagent dispensing probe 15 is configured to suck and dispense reagent to various positions; [0066] as well as the reaction solution aspiration nozzle 18; [0068]. Thus, the control being configured to retract and ascend each dispensing probe), and
perform an interlock control that stops the operation of the first processing unit when the device cover is open (Yamashita disclose the analysis device is operational when the cover is down and lock is powered on and the analysis device is out of operation when the cover is opened and lock is powered off; [0003, 0054-0055, 0065]).
Yamashita does not teach the control unit configured to cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit, the contents instructing an operator to perform the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit continuously using one of the first tool and the second tool. However, Taki teach the analogous art of an automatic analyzer (Taki; fig. 1, [0039]) comprising a plurality of processing units that require maintenance work using a plurality of maintenance work tools (Taki; teach a sample disk 1, a reagent disk 2, a reaction disk 3, a reaction tank 4, a sampling mechanism 5, a reagent pipetting mechanism 6, an agitating mechanism 7, a photometry mechanism 8, and a washing mechanism 9; fig.1, [0039]. The plurality of processing units require maintenance work according to a maintenance item procedure element 40; fig. 1, #40, [0055] using a plurality of maintenance work tools “gauze” and “cotton applicator”; figs. 4a, 4b, 4c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b), a display unit (Taki; fig. 1, #10, [0051]), a control unit for controlling the plurality of processing units, the analysis unit, and the display unit (Taki; fig. 1, #13, [0052]), and the control unit configured to cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit (Taki teach the control unit 13 performs maintenance item procedure element 40; figs. 1-2, [0055, 0057-0058]), the contents instructing an operator to perform the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit continuously using one of the first tool and the second tool (Taki teach a user selects maintenance items to be performed, the selected maintenance items are divided into procedure elements, the procedure elements are calculated and an estimated time is displayed; figs. 2 & 3a-3b, [0058]. The operator is prompted to start the maintenance procedure elements, various graphics comprising instructions are displayed on the screen along with progress. The user may refer to a user manual while performing each procedure; figs. 8 & 9, [0076-0081]. The maintenance operations are performed for each processing unit continuously using the first tool and the second tool; figs 4a, 4b, 4c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b, “A8”, “A13”, “A15”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit and display unit of Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit, as taught by Taki, because Taki teaches the instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit allows the maintenance work to be sorted into procedure elements thereby reducing labor and operating time required for the maintenance operation to be performed (Taki; [0023]).
Modified Yamashita does not explicitly disclose the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit is performed using the first tool without switching to the second tool. However, Takata teach the analogous art of a control unit and display (Takata teach a disassembly procedure generating apparatus 1 and display 2 that displays a generated disassembly procedure; fig. 1 [0007, 0048]) wherein the control unit is configured to display maintenance work procedures having a plurality of units associated with each procedure, and a tool used by an operator to perform each maintenance work procedure on the plurality of units (Takata teach assembly procedures and disassembly procedures, each procedure uses various parts and a tool to perform the procedure. The display unit instructs a user to perform the work on using a tool on the plurality of units without switching to another tool; fig. 12, [0068]. For example, the display shown in figure 12 itemizes each procedure to be performed. In the case of procedure (1), units A and B are to receive maintenance using a first tool. In the case of procedure (2), units C and D are to receive maintenance with a second tool). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit and display of modified Yamashita to be configured to display the maintenance work and contents instructing the operator to perform the maintenance work of the first unit and second unit continuously using the first tool without switching to the second tool, as taught by Takata, because Takata teach the control unit and display configured to show the parts and tool by procedure allow the user to identify which tool(s) for the maintenance work are needed according to location (Takata; [0068]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Yamashita and Takata both teach displaying maintenance work to be performed on a screen for a user.
Modified Yamashita does not teach cause the display unit to display a maintenance work sequence guide screen for the operator to select whether to perform the maintenance work in the order of the plurality of maintenance work tools or to perform the maintenance work in the order of the plurality of processing units, and upon receiving a selection of to perform the maintenance work in the order of the plurality of maintenance work tools. However, Calem teach the analogous art of a control system for customizing displays using a dynamic display system (Calem; fig. 1, [0002, 0009, 0032]), wherein the customized displays are generated from a pick list comprising a list of options or choices presented to a user to select the one or more of the options or choices, and assigning a numerical order of precedence for each selection (Calem; fig. 1, [0034, 0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit configured to cause the display unit to display maintenance work content of modified Yamashita with the dynamic display system configured to generate customized displays from a sorted list of choices according to an order of precedence, as taught by Calem, because Calem teach the dynamic display allows customization of displays for various groups within an organization while maintaining a common data structure (Calem; [0002]). Accordingly, modified Yamashita would comprise a display unit to display a maintenance work sequence guide screen for the operator to select whether to perform the maintenance work in the order of the plurality of maintenance work tools or to perform the maintenance work in the order of the plurality of processing units, wherein a selection to perform the maintenance work in the order of the plurality of maintenance work tools is defined by an order of precedence with respect to each tool. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Yamashita and Calem both teach systems configured to present information to a user in an organized manner.
Modified Yamashita does not teach after the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit is completed with the first tool, cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the dispensing mechanism. However, Fujita teach the analogous art of an automatic analyzer (Fujita; fig. 1, #1, [0024]) comprising a display unit (Fujita; fig. 1, #4b, [0026]), a control unit (Fujita; fig. 1, #4a, [0026]), and a dispensing mechanism (Fujita; fig. 1, #30, #60, [0036]), wherein the control unit is configured to cause the display unit to display maintenance work content in conjunction with the dispensing probe after the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit is completed (Fujita; fig. 6, “Pipette cleaning” and “Piercer wiping”, “when the maintenance is implemented, the mark is changed to a black circle mark”, [0013, 0054, 0056-0057, 0059]), and causes the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the dispensing mechanism (Fujita; fig. 6, “Piercer wiping”, [0059]), and perform a process of retracting and ascending the dispensing mechanism to perform the maintenance work contents of the dispensing mechanism (Fujita; [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit and display unit of modified Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions to cause the display unit to display maintenance work content in conjunction with the dispensing probe after the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit is completed, and cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the dispensing mechanism, as taught by Fujita, because Fujita teach the maintenance work content on the dispensing mechanism is part of routine maintenance procedure to remove dirt from the piercer of the dispensing mechanism (Fujita; [0059]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Yamashita and Fujita both teach automatic analyzers comprising a plurality of processing units which have routine maintenance procedures performed on the processing units.
Note: Claims 1-4 and 7-12 contain a large amount of functional language or language related to intended use (e.g. “for … causes … using … “). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 2, modified Yamashita teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the control unit is configured to cause the display unit to display the plurality of maintenance work tools used for the maintenance work performed by the operator on the plurality of processing units in conjunction with the maintenance work content (The modification of the control unit and display unit of Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions configured to cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit, as taught by Taki, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Taki additionally disclose maintenance work tools “gauze” and “cotton applicator” in displays; figs. 4a, 4b, 4c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b).
Regarding claim 3, modified Yamashita teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein at least one of the plurality of maintenance work tools is a tool for cleaning the plurality of processing units (The modification of the control unit and display unit of Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit, as taught by Taki, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Taki additionally disclose maintenance work tools “gauze” and “cotton applicator” in displays; figs. 4a, 4b, 4c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b. The examiner notes that gauze or a cotton applicator may be used for a plurality of cleaning procedures).
Regarding claim 4, modified Yamashita teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of processing units includes an agitation mechanism (Yamashita; fig. 1, #16, [0067]) that has an agitating rod for agitating a reagent (Yamashita; fig. 1, #16, “arm”, [0067]) and maintenance work of the agitation mechanism is performed (Yamashita; fig. 1, #17, [0050, 0067, 0127]) by using the second tool among the plurality of maintenance work tools (Yamashita disclose the various operation mechanism group 29 are cleaned with cloth or brush; [0050, 0127]), and wherein the control unit is configured to cause the display unit, after the dispensing probe and the agitating rod are retracted (Yamashita disclose the stirring means 16 is controlled to raise and lower the stirring means 16 into the cleaning means 17; [0067]), to display the maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit in conjunction with an operation of the dispensing probe (The modification of the control unit and display unit of Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit, as taught by Taki, and the modification of the control unit and display unit of modified Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions to cause the display unit to display maintenance work content in conjunction with the dispensing probe after the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit is completed, and cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the dispensing mechanism, as taught by Fujita, have previously been discussed in claim 1 above).
Modified Yamashita does not teach displaying the maintenance work contents in conjunction with an operation of the agitating rod.
However, However, Taki teach the analogous art of an automatic analyzer (Taki; fig. 1, [0039]) comprising a plurality of processing units that require maintenance work using a plurality of maintenance work tools (Taki; teach a sample disk 1, a reagent disk 2, a reaction disk 3, a reaction tank 4, a sampling mechanism 5, a reagent pipetting mechanism 6, an agitating mechanism 7, a photometry mechanism 8, and a washing mechanism 9; fig.1, [0039]. The plurality of processing units require maintenance work according to a maintenance item procedure element 40; fig. 1, #40, [0055] using a plurality of maintenance work tools “gauze” and “cotton applicator”; figs. 4a, 4b, 4c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b), a display unit (Taki; fig. 1, #10, [0051]), and a control unit for controlling the plurality of processing units, the analysis unit, and the display unit (Taki; fig. 1, #13, [0052]), and the control unit is configured to cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit (Taki teach the control unit 13 performs maintenance item procedure element 40; figs. 1-2, [0055, 0057-0058]); such that an operator performs the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit continuously (Taki teach a user selects maintenance items to be performed, the selected maintenance items are divided into procedure elements, the procedure elements are calculated and an estimated time is displayed; figs. 2 & 3a-3c, [0058]. The operator is prompted to start the maintenance procedure elements, various graphics comprising instructions are displayed on the screen along with progress. The user may refer to a user manual while performing each procedure; figs. 8 & 9, [0076-0081]), wherein the maintenance work contents is in conjunction with an operation of the agitating rod (Taki teach reacting parts are washed weekly and that the agitating mechanism as an agitating rod may be used; figs. 3a, 4a, [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control unit and display unit of modified Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents in conjunction with all of the reacting parts, as taught by Taki, because Taki teaches the instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of all of the reacting parts allows the maintenance work to be sorted into procedure elements thereby reducing labor and operating time required for the maintenance operation to be performed (Taki; [0023]).
Note: What the tool is used for relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yamashita teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the control unit is configured to display, on one screen of the display unit, work contents of the plurality of processing units that continuously use selected one of the plurality of maintenance work tools (The modification of the control unit and display unit of Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit, as taught by Taki, and the modification of the control unit and display unit of modified Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions to cause the display unit to display maintenance work content in conjunction with the dispensing probe after the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit is completed, and cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the dispensing mechanism, as taught by Fujita, have previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Taki teach the maintenance items are grouped into procedure elements and sorted based on a predetermined rule; figs. 2 & 9, [0019, 0058, 0062-0063]. Further, the modification of the control unit and display of modified Yamashita to be configured to display the maintenance work and contents instructing the operator to perform the maintenance work of the first unit and second unit continuously using the first tool without switching to the second tool, as taught by Takata, as discussed in claim 1 above. Takata teach the displaying work contents of the plurality of units (A, B) and (C, D) that continuously use selected one of the plurality of maintenance work tools on one display).
Regarding claim 8, modified Yamashita teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the control unit is configured to display the plurality of maintenance work tools used for the maintenance work on one screen of the display unit (The modification of the control unit and display unit of Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit, as taught by Taki, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Taki additionally disclose maintenance work tools “gauze” and “cotton applicator” in displays; figs. 4a, 4b, 4c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b. Further, the modification of the control unit and display of modified Yamashita to be configured to display the maintenance work and contents instructing the operator to perform the maintenance work of the first unit and second unit continuously using the first tool without switching to the second tool, as taught by Takata, as discussed in claim 1 above. Takata teach the displaying work contents of the plurality of units (A, B) and (C, D) that continuously use selected one of the plurality of maintenance work tools on one display).
Regarding claim 9, modified Yamashita teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 6 above, wherein when the device cover is open, the control unit is configured to cause the display unit to display a display for the operator to determine whether to proceed to the next maintenance work (Yamashita teach the cover comprises an interlock; figs. 2-17, [0054-0055, 0065]. Furthermore, the modification of the control unit and display unit of Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit, as taught by Taki, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Taki teach the operator declares the procedure elements have been performed on the display unit before proceeding to the next step; fig. 8, Steps 102-105, [0077-0078]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Yamashita teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of processing units include a mixer for agitating the reagent (Yamashita; fig. 1, #16, [0067]), and an incubator for keeping the temperature of the agitated reagent (Yamashita; fig. 1, #2, [0064]), one of the plurality of maintenance work tools is a piece of cloth (Yamashita; “cloth”, [0127]), and the maintenance work is work performed on the mixer and the incubator by the operator using the cloth (Yamashita teach cleaning the various operation mechanism group 29 using cloth or brush; [0050, 0127]).
Note: What the cloth is used for relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Regarding claim 12, modified Yamashita teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the plurality of processing units includes an agitation mechanism including an agitating rod for agitating the reagent (Yamashita; fig. 1, #16, [0067]), and wherein the maintenance work is work performed on the dispensing probe and the agitating rod by the operator (The modification of the control unit and display unit of Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions that cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the first processing unit and the second processing unit, as taught by Taki, and the modification of the control unit and display unit of modified Yamashita to further comprise programming instructions to cause the display unit to display maintenance work content in conjunction with the dispensing probe after the maintenance work of the first processing unit and the second processing unit is completed, and cause the display unit to display maintenance work contents of the dispensing mechanism, as taught by Fujita, have previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Yamashita teach cleaning the various operation mechanism group 29 using cloth or brush; [0050, 0127]. Furthermore, Taki teach the operator declares the procedure elements have been performed on the display unit before proceeding to the next step; fig. 8, Steps 102-105, [0077-0078]).
Modified Yamashita does not teach wherein the second tool is a swab, and the maintenance work is work performed on the dispensing probe and the agitating rod by the operator using the swab.
However, teach the analogous art of an automatic analyzer (Taki; fig. 1, [0039]) comprising a plurality of processing units that require maintenance work using a plurality of maintenance work tools (Taki; teach a sample disk 1, a reagent disk 2, a reaction disk 3, a reaction tank 4, a sampling mechanism 5, a reagent pipetting mechanism 6, an agitating mechanism 7, a photometry mechanism 8, and a washing mechanism 9; fig.1, [0039]. The plurality of processing units requires maintenance work according to a maintenance item procedure element 40; fig. 1, #40, [0055] using a plurality of maintenance work tools “gauze” and “cotton applicator”; figs. 4a, 4b, 4c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b) wherein the second tool is a swab, and the maintenance work is performed using the swab (Taki; “cotton applicator”; figs. 4a, 4b, 4c, 6a, 6b, 7a, 7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify on of the maintenance tools of modified Yamashita to be a cotton applicator, as taught by Taki, because the cotton applicator is an inexpensive, disposable tool that allows cleaning of narrow spaces). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Yamashita and Taki both teach tools for cleaning a plurality of processing unit in an automatic analyzer.
Note: What the swab is used for relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-15 of their remarks, filed 01/20/2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are towards the amended claims and do not apply to the current grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Calem which the examiner contends teach the newly presented claim limitations.
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.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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