DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Based on the claim amendments and remarks filed on 1/21/26, one of the previous prior art rejections is withdrawn and the other previous prior art rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-14 are pending with claims 1, 3-4 and 8-14 being examined and claims 5 and 7 deemed withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 3-4, 8-14 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamano, T (US 20170151570; hereinafter “Yamano”; already of record) in view of Machine translation of JP2018054292 (hereinafter “ ‘292 ”; already of record) in view of Alpert, M (US 20170273534; hereinafter “Alpert”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Yamano teaches an automatic analyzer that analyzes a specimen (Yamano; abstract, Fig. 1-3), comprising:
an analyzer that analyzes the specimen (Yamano teaches an analyzer 11; [22, 39], Fig. 1);
a supply unit that stores and supplies a liquid to be used by the analyzer (Yamano teaches supply tank 53; [33], Fig. 3);
an analyzer circulation system that circulates the liquid existing in the analyzer (Yamano teaches circulation pump 52 which circulates liquid in the analyzer; [34], Fig. 3);
a supply unit circulation system that circulates the liquid existing in the supply unit (Yamano teaches pump 54 which controls the circulation/movement of the liquid from supply unit 53; [33, 36, 42], Fig. 1-3);
a temperature adjuster that adjusts the temperature of the liquid within the analyzer circulation system (Yamano teaches a heater 51 that adjusts the temperature of the liquid; [32, 34], Fig. 3.); and
a controller that controls an operation of the automatic analyzer, the controller being configured to: switch a flow rate of the liquid circulated by at least one of the analyzer circulation system and the supply unit circulation system between a first flow rate in a normal state and a second flow rate different from the first flow rate (Yamano teaches a controller/computer 1 and controller 101/104; [65, 68, 71-73, 76-79], Fig. 1, 5. Yamano teaches that pump 54 can be stopped such that the flow rate of liquid from supply unit 53 stops, and that the pump can be operated such that the pump circulates the fluid; [36, 42, 52, 68, 72, 73, 78, 79]); and the controller is configured to heat the liquid to a temperature higher than the temperature of the liquid in normal temperature adjustment by the temperature adjuster when a device power supply is turned off, or when the automatic analyzer is activated, or when the analysis is not planned for a certain time period or longer in the analyzer (Yamano teaches a heater 51 that adjusts the temperature of the liquid; [32, 34], Fig. 3. The heater of Yamano would be controlled on and off to help maintain the liquid at a temperature at 37 C, and therefore when the analyzer is activated, and under the circumstance that the temperature is not 37 degrees then the heater would heat the liquid until the liquid was 37 C).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “that…”, “configured to…”). However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond a capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114 and 2173.05(g)). Therefore, if the prior art structure is capable of performing the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims.
Yamano does not specifically teach that the liquid is flowing in both the first and second flow rate. Yamano also teaches the importance of replacing the circulating liquid in the analyzer due to foreign substances and monitoring abnormalities in the liquid (Yamano; [3, 63-65]), where it is desirable to use antibacterial techniques with the liquid (Yamano; [37]). However, ‘292 teaches the analogous art of an analyzer with a liquid supply (‘292; Fig. 1, 3, 4), which includes a sterilization unit having a ultraviolet light source to emit UV light to sterilize the liquid where the fluid flow rate is controlled to flow at a first flow rate and a second flow rate different from the first flow rate during sterilization (‘292 teaches that the fluid flow rate is reduced to increase the amount of sterilization [41, 50 ,80] which helps to provide a low cost solution [42] and avoid complexities of altering the sterilization parameters [42] by using the change in flow rate to change sterilization strength. ‘292 also teaches liquid 2 which is supplied to the analyzer and is treated with a UV light to achieve both sterilization and suppression of changes of liquid properties; [7, 31, 35, 36, 51, 42,50, 65-67, 80, 99], Fig. 1, 3, 4. ‘292 also teaches that unsterilized liquid can cause changes in light signal values; [32]. ‘292 teaches abnormality during sterilization which can include air bubbles or malfunction of the UV light, where an alert is displayed indicating the abnormality; [99, 100, 102], Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the analyzer with the liquid supply and the corresponding monitoring of the abnormality in the liquid of Yamano with the UV light to sterilize the liquid by changing the flow rates during sterilization as in ‘292 because ‘292 teaches that changing flow rates helps to provide a low cost solution [42] and avoid complexities of altering the sterilization parameters [42] by using the change in flow rate to change sterilization strength [42], and ‘292 teaches that using a UV light helps to stabilize analytical performance by achieving both sterilization and suppression of changes of liquid properties [7], and because ‘292 also teaches that unsterilized liquid can cause changes in light signal values [32] which would be undesirable during the analysis as in Yamano.
Modified Yamano does not specifically teach heat the liquid to a temperature of 75 degrees C, which is higher than the temperature of the liquid in normal temperature adjustment being 37 degrees C by the temperature adjuster, then Alpert teaches the analogous art of water which is sterilized where the water can be sterilized via UV light and heating (Alpert teaches that water is sterilized via UV light and also heating to 180 degrees F which is 82 degrees C; [38, 77]). Alpert also teaches the analogous art of monitoring the fluid for abnormalities (Alpert teaches spectroscopy to determine sterilization; [77]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the evaluation of the water for abnormalities and the heater that heats water to a temperature of 37 degrees during analysis of modified Yamano to have sterilized the water using higher temperatures as in Alpert because Alpert teaches that heating the water helps to sterilize the water (Alpert; [77]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the heater that heats water and the UV sterilization of the water of modified Yamano to have sterilized the water using higher temperatures above 75 degrees C as in Alpert because Alpert teaches that heating the water to 82 degrees C helps to sterilize the water as an obvious addition to, or alternative to, UV sterilization (Alpert; [77]). Although the examiner believes that Yamano teaches adjusting the temperature when the device power supply is turned off, or when the automatic analyzer is activated, or when the analysis is not planned for a certain time period or longer in the analyzer, if it is determined that Yamano does not teach this limitation, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary have modified the heater that heats to a sterilizing temperature above 75 degrees C in modified Yamano (Yamano in view of ‘292 in view of Alpert) to take place when the analyzer is activated/turned on, or when the device is turned off because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the importance of ensuring that the device was sterilized prior to being used and/or after being used in order to clean the analyzer and ensure that no contaminants were present in the device which would negatively affect quality control and result in erroneous sample readings, thereby making the analyzer and corresponding results inaccurate, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the importance of doing the higher temperature sterilization at any timing, including activation or shut down or when there is time to run the sterilization protocol prior to the next scheduled analysis, such that the high temperature sterilization did not interfere with the analysis.
As to claim 3, Yamano teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 1, further comprising: an ultraviolet light source that emits ultraviolet light to the liquid (The modification of the analyzer with the liquid supply of Yamano to include the UV light to sterilize the liquid as in ‘292 has already been discussed in claim 1 above).
As to claim 4, modified Yamano teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 3, further comprising: a relay that switches between power supply to the analyzer and the controller and blocking of the power supply; and a stop controller configured to maintain a state in which power is supplied to the ultraviolet light source and switch between a stopped state in which the power supply to the analyzer and the controller is blocked and an activated state in which power is supplied to the analyzer and the controller (Yamano teaches the analyzer/photometer which is automated and would not always be running and would only be on during analysis, and therefore would be turned on and off to switch between powering and blocking power. The modification of the analyzer with the liquid supply of Yamano to include the UV light to sterilize the liquid as in ‘292 has already been discussed above. ‘292 teaches UV sterilization that is independent of analysis such that the power to the UV light can be maintained prior to analysis/prior to the analyzer being powered on, and also where the UV sterilization can be delivered during operation such as prior to using detector/analysis, and also predetermined periodic sterilization, where a user can schedule the sterilization as desired; [66-67, 69, 83]).
As to claim 8, modified Yamano teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 3, wherein the controller is configured to turn on the ultraviolet light source periodically at predetermined time intervals or turn on the ultraviolet light source a plurality of times at arbitrary time intervals (The modification of the analyzer with the liquid supply of Yamano to include the UV light to sterilize the liquid as in ‘292 has already been discussed above. ‘292 teaches sterilizing independent of analysis such as prior to using detector/analysis, and also predetermined periodic sterilization, where a user can schedule the sterilization as desired; [66-67, 69, 83]).
As to claim 9, modified Yamano teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 8, further comprising: a lighting detection sensor that detects an abnormality of the ultraviolet light source (The modification of the analyzer with the liquid supply and the corresponding monitoring of the abnormality of Yamano to include the UV light to sterilize the liquid as in ‘292 has already been discussed above. ‘292 teaches abnormality during sterilization which can include air bubbles or malfunction of the UV light, where an alert is displayed indicating the abnormality; [99, 100, 102], Fig. 7).
As to claim 10, modified Yamano teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 8, wherein the controller is configured to notify an abnormality to a user of the automatic analyzer based on information of a lighting detection sensor (The modification of the analyzer with the liquid supply and the corresponding monitoring of the abnormality of Yamano to include the UV light to sterilize the liquid as in ‘292 has already been discussed above. ‘292 teaches abnormality during sterilization which can include air bubbles or malfunction of the UV light, where an alert is displayed indicating the abnormality; [99, 100, 102], Fig. 7).
As to claim 11, modified Yamano teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 9, wherein the controller is configured to block power supply to the ultraviolet light source based on the information of the lighting detection sensor (The modification of the analyzer with the liquid supply of Yamano to include the UV light to sterilize the liquid as in ‘292 has already been discussed above. ‘292 teaches UV sterilization that is independent of analysis such that the power to the UV light can be scheduled and turned on/off as desired; [66-67, 69, 83]). Alternatively, if it is deemed that modified Yamano does not teach stopping the UV light source based on the information from the sensor, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to have modified the controller and sensor that detects an abnormality in the UV light source of modified Yamano (see claim 9 above- ‘292; [99, 100, 102], Fig. 7) to have blocked power to the UV light source upon determining the light was abnormal because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the importance of turning off the light in order to replace the light source in order to provide a proper functioning analyzer/UV sterilization device.
As to claim 12, modified Yamano teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 1, further comprising: a liquid amount sensor that is configured to detect the amount of the liquid within the analyzer circulation system or the supply unit circulation system (Yamano teaches sensor 40; [22, 31, 67, 68, 72, 73, 78, 79], Fig. 3, 5).
As to claim 13, modified Yamano teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 12, further comprising an ultraviolet light source that emits ultraviolet light to the liquid, wherein the controller is configured to: notify an abnormality to a user of the automatic analyzer based on information of the liquid amount sensor, block a power supply to the ultraviolet light source, and increase or reduce the amount of the liquid (The modification of the analyzer with the liquid supply of Yamano to include the UV light to sterilize the liquid as in ‘292 has already been discussed in claim 1 above. Yamano teaches displaying an alarm if there is not enough water; [59]. After an alarm is displayed, then the analyzer is paused such that power is not operated to the light source until the liquid amount is increased; [59, 65]. ‘292 teaches UV sterilization that is independent of analysis such that the power to the UV light can be scheduled and turned on/off as desired; [66-67, 69, 83]). Alternatively, if it is deemed that modified Yamano does not teach blocking power to the UV light source, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to have modified the controller and sensor that detects an abnormality in the UV light source of modified Yamano (see claim 9 above- ‘292; [99, 100, 102], Fig. 7) to have blocked power to the UV light source upon determining the light was abnormal based on the sensor because one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the importance of turning off the light in order to replace the light source in order to provide a proper functioning analyzer/UV sterilization device.
As to claim 14, modified Yamano teaches the automatic analyzer according to claim 1, further comprising: an ultraviolet light source that emits ultraviolet light to the liquid, and a temperature sensor that measures the temperature of the liquid within the analyzer circulation system or the supply unit circulation system, wherein the controller is configured to control at least any of the intensity of ultraviolet light emitted by the ultraviolet light source and the flow rate of the liquid within the analyzer circulation system or the supply unit circulation system based on information of the temperature, measured by the temperature sensor, of the liquid (Yamano teaches maintaining the temperature to be constant where there would need to be some type of temperature sensor in order to provide feedback to the heater so that the heater could turn on/off to control the temperature. The modification of the analyzer with the liquid supply of Yamano to include the UV light to sterilize the liquid as in ‘292 has already been discussed above, where ‘292 teaches changing the UV light and flow rate via the pump to increase sterilization; [41, 42, 50, 80, 99]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Yasuda (US 20140370492; hereinafter “Yasuda”; already of record) teaches that flow rate is a result effective variable that can be adjusted to achieve desired heat exchange; [22, 150, 157].
Iijima et al (US 20090220383; hereinafter “Iijima”; already of record) teaches a supply unit circulation system 9/10 and a analyzer circulation system 6 which control the temperature of the water, where the heater is turned on/off to control the temperature; [21], Fig. 1. Iijima also teaches that flow rate can be changed in order to maintain temperature; [7, 30, 31].
Suzuki (US 4981801; hereinafter “Suzuki”; already of record) teaches heating and/or cooling fluids; Fig. 1-2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/29/25 have been considered, and has not found applicants arguments persuasive, but nonetheless the arguments are moot because the rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
However, because the same prior art is relied upon then the examiner will address applicants arguments in order to help promote compact prosecution.
Applicants argue on pages 9-11 of their remarks the prior art does not teach to heat the liquid to a temperature of 75 degrees C, which is higher than the temperature of the liquid in normal temperature adjustment being 37 degrees C by the temperature adjuster when a device power supply is turned off, or when the automatic analyzer is activated, or when the analysis is not planned for a certain time period or longer in the analyzer. Applicants then argue against each of the references.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner maintains that Yamano teaches the controller is configured to heat the liquid to a temperature higher than the temperature of the liquid in normal temperature adjustment by the temperature adjuster when a device power supply is turned off, or when the automatic analyzer is activated, or when the analysis is not planned for a certain time period or longer in the analyzer (Yamano teaches a heater 51 that adjusts the temperature of the liquid; [32, 34], Fig. 3. The heater of Yamano would be controlled on and off to help maintain the liquid at a temperature at 37 C, and therefore when the analyzer is activated, and under the circumstance that the temperature is not 37 degrees then the heater would heat the liquid until the liquid was 37 C). Yamano is then modified with ‘292 because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the analyzer with the liquid supply and the corresponding monitoring of the abnormality in the liquid of Yamano with the UV light to sterilize the liquid by changing the flow rates during sterilization as in ‘292 because ‘292 teaches that changing flow rates helps to provide a low cost solution [42] and avoid complexities of altering the sterilization parameters [42] by using the change in flow rate to change sterilization strength [42], and ‘292 teaches that using a UV light helps to stabilize analytical performance by achieving both sterilization and suppression of changes of liquid properties [7], and because ‘292 also teaches that unsterilized liquid can cause changes in light signal values [32] which would be undesirable during the analysis as in Yamano. Modified Yamano does not specifically teach heat the liquid to a temperature of 75 degrees C, which is higher than the temperature of the liquid in normal temperature adjustment being 37 degrees C by the temperature adjuster, then Alpert teaches the analogous art of water which is sterilized where the water can be sterilized via UV light and heating (Alpert teaches that water is sterilized via UV light and also heating to 180 degrees F which is 82 degrees C; [38, 77]). Alpert also teaches the analogous art of monitoring the fluid for abnormalities (Alpert teaches spectroscopy to determine sterilization; [77]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the evaluation of the water for abnormalities and the heater that heats water to a temperature of 37 degrees during analysis of modified Yamano to have sterilized the water using higher temperatures as in Alpert because Alpert teaches that heating the water helps to sterilize the water (Alpert; [77]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the heater that heats water and the UV sterilization of the water of modified Yamano to have sterilized the water using higher temperatures above 75 degrees C as in Alpert because Alpert teaches that heating the water to 82 degrees C helps to sterilize the water as an obvious addition to, or alternative to, UV sterilization (Alpert; [77]). Although the examiner believes that Yamano teaches adjusting the temperature when the device power supply is turned off, or when the automatic analyzer is activated, or when the analysis is not planned for a certain time period or longer in the analyzer, if it is determined that Yamano does not teach this limitation, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary have modified the heater that heats to a sterilizing temperature above 75 degrees C in modified Yamano (Yamano in view of ‘292 in view of Alpert) to take place when the analyzer is activated/turned on, or when the device is turned off because one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the importance of ensuring that the device was sterilized prior to being used and/or after being used in order to clean the analyzer and ensure that no contaminants were present in the device which would negatively affect quality control and result in erroneous sample readings, thereby making the analyzer and corresponding results inaccurate, and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the importance of doing the higher temperature sterilization at any timing, including activation or shut down or when there is time to run the sterilization protocol prior to the next scheduled analysis, such that the high temperature sterilization did not interfere with the analysis.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN R WHATLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-9892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-5pm.
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, 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.
/BENJAMIN R WHATLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798