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
Claims 8-15 are pending and under examination.
Claims 1-7 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, received 05/04/2026, have overcome the 112(b) rejection(s) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/03/2026.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, the previous prior art rejection over Babson has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth (see below).
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 8-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2008/0056944 – hereinafter “Nakamura”) in view of Miller (US 2005/0037502; already of record – hereinafter “Miller”).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura disclose an automatic analysis system (Nakamura; fig. 1, [0021]) comprising:
a plurality of analysis devices (Nakamura; fig. 1, #5, #6, #7, #8, [0023]);
a conveyance unit to which the analysis devices are connected (Nakamura; fig. 1, #3, [0023]); and
an operation unit configured to operate the conveyance unit and convey a quality control sample to one of the plurality of analysis devices (Nakamura; figs. 1 & 3, [0027-0028, 0037-0048]),
wherein the automatic analysis system includes a common storage cabinet that stores the quality control sample that is suppliable to the plurality of analysis devices (Nakamura; figs. 1 & 3-4, #91, Step 411, [0025, 0038, 0046]), and
a dispensing unit configured to dispense the quality control sample (Nakamura; figs 2 & 3, #47, [0033, 0048]),
in accordance with a rule registered in advance for each of the plurality of analysis devices (Nakamura; figs. 3-5, [0037-0048]), the operation unit operates the conveyance unit to automatically convey a plurality of dispensed quality control samples dispensed by the dispensing unit to an analysis device of the plurality of analysis devices (Nakamura; fig. 3, Step 411 and Step 412, [0037, 0046-0047]), and
the dispensed quality control sample that was measured by one of the plurality of analysis devices is returned to the common storage cabinet by the conveyance unit (Nakamura; fig. 3, Step 413, [0048]), and the common storage cabinet stores the dispensed quality control sample when a predetermined condition including that a remaining volume of the dispensed quality control sample is sufficient is satisfied (Nakamura; fig 3, Step 404 through Step 407 and Step 413, [0041-0043, 0048]);
if the remaining volume of the dispensed quality control sample is insufficient, the common storage cabinet temporarily stores the dispensed quality control sample until a result of quality control by the analysis is obtained (Nakamura; fig. 3, Step 404 through Step 407 and Step 413, [0041-0043, 0048]), and after the result of the quality control is obtained (Nakamura; fig. 3, Step 412, [0047]).
Nakamura does not teach the common storage cabinet discards the temporarily stored dispensed quality control sample, or conveys the dispensed quality control sample to a housing unit outside the common storage cabinet.
However, Miller teach the analogous art of an automatic analysis system (Miller; fig. 1, #10, [0027]) comprising: a plurality of analysis devices (Miller; fig. 1, #32, #38, #42, [0028]); a conveyance unit to which the analysis devices are connected (Miller; fig. 1, #14, [0028]); and an operation unit configured to operate the conveyance unit and convey a quality control sample to one of the plurality of analysis devices (Miller; fig. 1, #15, [0030, 0074-0094]), wherein the automatic analysis system includes a common storage cabinet that stores a quality control sample that is suppliable to the plurality of analysis devices (Miller disclose a QC output lane for storing QC materials not in use; [0127, 0163, 0259]), wherein the common storage cabinet discards the temporarily stored dispensed quality control sample, or conveys the dispensed quality control sample to a housing unit outside the common storage cabinet (Miller disclose unusable QC materials are sent to a Priority Output rack where it will not be placed back on the conveyance unit; [0135, 0137-0143, 0173]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the operation unit configured to operate in accordance with a rule of Nakamura to discard the temporarily stored dispensed quality control sample, or convey the dispensed quality control sample to a housing unit outside the common storage cabinet, as taught by Miller, because Miller teach the rule to discard the dispensed quality control sample guarantees there is no possibility of a mix-up duplicate ID’s by preventing old QC material from being placed back on the track; [0135]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Nakamura and Miller both teach designated QC storage cabinets for periodic delivery to a plurality of analysis devices.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nakamura teach the automatic analysis system according to claim 8 above, wherein when one of the plurality of analysis devices notifies the operation unit of information that is a trigger of a quality control, the operation unit instructs the common storage cabinet to take out the quality control sample, and the conveyance unit conveys the quality control sample to the dispensing unit, and the conveyance unit conveys one of the plurality of dispensed quality control samples dispensed by the dispensing unit to the analysis device (Nakamura; figs. 3 & 4, [0037-0038, 0046-0048]).
Regarding claim 10, modified Nakamura teach the automatic analysis system according to claim 8 above, wherein the rule includes at least one of a type of a sample used for a quality control, a time interval for implementing a quality control, and the number of measurements of a general sample as a condition for implementing a quality control (Nakamura; figs. 3-5, [0037-0040]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Nakamura teach the automatic analysis system according to claim 8 above, wherein when none of a maximum storage time of the dispensed quality control sample, a maximum usage time of the dispensed quality control sample, and a maximum number of usages of the dispensed quality control sample is exceeded, the common storage cabinet stores the returned dispensed quality control sample (Nakamura; fig. 3, [0043, 0048]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Nakamura teach the automatic analysis system according to claim 8 above, wherein a plurality of dispensed quality control samples dispensed by the dispensing unit are conveyed to the different analysis devices (Nakamura; [0037]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Nakamura teach the automatic analysis system according to claim 8 above, wherein the dispensing unit is configured to dispense the quality control sample, and one dispensed quality control sample dispensed by the dispensing unit is conveyed to one of the plurality of analysis devices, and the quality control sample that is a dispensing source is conveyed to the common storage cabinet, and is stored in the common storage cabinet when the predetermined condition is satisfied (Nakamura; figs. 2-3, [0037-0048]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nakamura teach the automatic analysis system according to claim 8 above, further comprising: a plurality of common storage cabinets, wherein the plurality of common storage cabinets supplies the quality control sample to the plurality of analysis devices (Nakamura; fig. 1, #51, #61, #71, #81, [0023, 0025, 0046]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nakamura teach the automatic analysis system according to claim 12 above, wherein when the measurement by the one of the plurality of analysis devices is completed, the conveyance unit returns the dispensed quality control sample from the one of the plurality of analysis devices to the common storage cabinet (Nakamura; fig. 3, #413, [0048]), and the common storage cabinet stores the dispensed quality control sample when the predetermined condition is satisfied (Nakamura; fig. 3, #404 through #408, [0041-0044]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights