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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-5, and 9 are pending and under examination.
Claims 2 and 6-8 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
The claim amendments, received 02/02/2026, have overcome the drawing and specification objections set forth in the Final Rejection mailed on 10/02/2025. Accordingly, the objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks have overcome the 112(b) rejection(s). Accordingly, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn. However, based on the amended claims, new 112(b) rejection(s) have been set forth.
Based on the amended claims and remarks, received 02/02/2026, the prior art rejection over Miwa has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection is set forth (see below).
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 1, 3-5, and 9 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 1 lines 12-13 recite “the rotation axis is positioned outside the housing on the left-right direction outer side of the sidewall of the housing to which the hinge is connected”. The limitation “the left-right direction outer side of the sidewall of the housing” is ambiguous and unclear. A six sided housing, shown in applicant’s figures, may have an outer left sidewall and an outer right sidewall when observed from the front. It is unclear what “the left-right direction outer side of the sidewall” is intending to define. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the rotation axis as being positioned on the outside of a left sidewall of the housing from a front view. Further, lines 14-15 recite “the front end of the side wall of the housing”. This is unclear with respect to applicant’s earlier recitation of “the side wall of the housing” in line 13 because there are two sidewalls, a top wall and a bottom wall, and it is unclear which of sidewalls applicant is referring to. Lines 14-15 would be clearer if amended to recite “a front end of each wall around an opening in the housing” Claims 3-5 and 9 are also rejected by their dependency from claim 1.
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 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa et al. (US Patent No. 4,877,583; already of record – hereinafter “Miwa”) in view of Schlack (US Patent No. 5,915,441 – hereinafter “Schlack”) and Jelinski (US Patent No. 6,120,119 – hereinafter “Jelinski”).
Regarding claim 1, Miwa disclose an automatic analyzer (Miwa; fig. 1, col. 2, line 61, “fluorescent analyzer”) comprising:
a flow cell which allows a reaction liquid including a specimen and a reagent to pass (Miwa disclose a sample cell or a flow cell 3; figs. 1-3, col. 2 lines 5-8 and 63. The sample cell or flow cell 3 may contain a specimen and a reagent; col. 3 lines 3-45);
a photodetector for detecting light emitted by the reaction liquid (Miwa disclose a photomultiplier 5 as a light detector for analyzing the sample cell or flow cell 3; figs. 1 & 3, col. 2 line 65 through col. 3 line 18); and
a housing for housing the flow cell and the photodetector (Miwa disclose a fluorescent analyzer comprised of various components and would necessarily have a housing to measure an optical path of light by the detector 5/7; fig. 1, col. 2 lines 61 through col. 3 line 2), wherein:
the housing includes a lid that opens and closes when the flow cell is carried in and out of the housing (Miwa disclose the sample cell or flow cell 3 is put in the analyzer a lid is shut down; col. 3 lines 3-18).
Miwa does not teach the lid is connected to the housing via a hinge; a fixing member for fixing the lid in a closed state; the hinge includes a rotation axis positioned in a vertical direction, and an extending portion for connecting the rotation axis and the lid; the rotation axis is positioned outside the housing on the left-right direction outer side of the side wall of the housing to which the hinge is connected.
However, Schlack teach the analogous art of a housing (Schlack; fig. 16, #16, col. 2 lines 64-67) and a lid connected to the housing (Schlack; fig. 16, #15, col. 2 line 67 through col. 3 line 4), wherein the lid is connected via a hinge (Schlack; fig. 16, #10, col. 2 line 64 through col. 3 line 4), a fixing member for fixing the lid in a closed state (Schlack; figs. 2 & 5, #28, col. 4 lines 40-44), the hinge includes a rotation axis positioned in a vertical direction (Schlack; fig. 16-17, #12, col. 3 lines 37-40 and col. 4 lines 23-44), and an extending portion for connecting the rotation axis and the lid (Schlack; figs. 1-2 & 17, #40, col. 3 lines 5-12), the rotation axis is positioned outside of the housing on the left-right direction outer side of the side wall of the housing to which the hinge is connected (Schlack disclose the hinge 10 is connected to a left side wall of the cabinet 16 when an observer is facing the lid 15. The rotation axis 12 is positioning outside/adjacent the housing 16 by a distance equivalent to the top member 22; figs. 16-18, col. 3 lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the housing and lid of Miwa with the lid connected to the housing via a hinge having a rotational axis position outside of the housing, as taught by Schlack, because Schlack teach the lid connected to housing via a hinge having a rotational axis positioned outside the housing allows one hundred eighty degrees or more of clearance of the door with respect to the cabinet (Schlack; col. 1 lines 7-13). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Miwa and Schlack both teach opening and closing a lid to provide access to a housing.
Modified Miwa does not teach the fixing member is provided on the lid or the housing, or a sealing member around the entire periphery of the front end of the side wall of the housing or at a position on the back side of the lid that faces the front end of the side wall of the housing when the lid is closed.
However, Jelinski teach the analogous art of a housing (Jelinski; fig. 1, #1, col. 3 lines 50-51) and a lid connected to the housing via hinge (Jelinski; figs 1-2, #6, #18, col. 3 lines 60-61), wherein a fixing member is provided on the lid or the housing (Jelinski teach latch assembly 9 on the lid 6 interfaces with locking element 13 on the housing 1; figs. 1-3, col. 4 lines 6-11), and a sealing member around the entire periphery of the front end of the side wall of the housing (Jelinski; fig. 1, #4, col. 3 lines 53-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the fixing member, lid, and housing of modified Miwa with the fixing member provided on the lid and housing, as taught by Jelinski, and to modify the housing to comprise a sealing member around the entire periphery of the front end of the side wall of the housing, as taught by Jelinski, because Jelinski teach the sealing member allows the lid to be pushed against the housing while the fixing member locks the lid to the door in a closed position to seal the opening between the lid and the housing (Jelinski; col. 5 lines 4-17). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Miwa and Jelinski both teach fixing a lid to a housing to close an opening.
Regarding claim 3, modified Miwa teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the fixing member is formed of a non-magnetic material and mechanically fastens the lid and the housing (The modification of the fixing member, lid, and housing of modified Miwa with the fixing member provided on the lid and housing, as taught by Jelinski, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Jelinski teach the fixing member is a latching assembly and locking element; figs. 1-4, col. 4 lines 6-11) .
Regarding claim 4, modified Miwa teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the photodetector is a photomultiplier tube (Miwa; figs 1 & 3, col. 2 lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 5, modified Miwa teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein after the lid performs a predetermined turning operation from an open state, the lid moves linearly toward an opening unit of the housing by a predetermined distance immediately before the lid enters the closed state (The modification of the housing and lid of Miwa with the lid connected to the housing via a hinge having a rotational axis position outside of the housing, as taught by Schlack, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Schlack teach the lid performs a predetermined turning operation from an open state; col. 4 line 45 through col. 5 line 6, where immediately before closing, the lid moves linearly to come into contact with the peripheral edge of the opening of the housing; fig. 16, col. 2 lines 20-24) .
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miwa in view of Schlack and Jelinski, and further in view of Takashi (Translation of JP 2010231114A; already of record – hereinafter “Takashi”).
Regarding claim 9, modified Miwa teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the axis of rotation of the hinge extends from the front end of the side wall of the housing to which the hinge is connected in a direction perpendicular to the side wall of the housing when viewed vertically from above (The modification of the housing and lid of Miwa with the lid connected to the housing via a hinge having a rotational axis position outside of the housing, as taught by Schlack, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Schlack disclose the hinge 10 is connected to a left side wall of the cabinet 16 when an observer is facing the lid 15. The rotation axis 12 is positioning outside/adjacent the housing 16 by a distance equivalent to the top member 22; figs. 16-18, col. 3 lines 64-67).
Modified Miwa does not teach the axis of rotation of the hinge extends from the front end of the side wall of the housing to which the hinge is connected in a direction perpendicular to the side wall of the housing when viewed vertically from above and a line extending forward and outward at an angle of 45° from the front end of the side wall of the housing.
However, Takashi teach the analogous art of a housing (Takashi; fig. 11, U2, [0047]) and a lid (Takashi; fig. 11, [0047]) attached to the housing via a hinge (Takashi; fig. 11, #22, [0047]), wherein the rotation axis of the hinge extends from the front end of the side wall of the housing to which the hinge is connected in a direction perpendicular to the side wall of the housing when viewed vertically from above and a line extending forward and outward at an angle of 45° from the front end of the side wall of the housing (Takashi; fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to modify the hinge of modified Miwa to be connected in a direction perpendicular to the housing side wall and a line extending forward and outward at an angle of 45° from the front end of the side wall of the housing when viewed from above, as in Takashi, because Takashi teach the location of the hinge in the defined region allows unobstructed access to the opening of the housing without interference from the lid; fig. 11. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Miwa and Takashi both teach hinged lids connected to a housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5 of their remarks, filed 02/02/2026, 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 over Miwa in view of Schlack and Jelinski 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.
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure include:
Pasty et al. (US Patent No. 4,771,269) disclose a housing with a gasket for sealing an opening with a lid and a fixing member for securing the lid to the housing.
Lu (US Patent No. 6,018,847) disclose a hinge with an extending member that connects to a rotational axis.
Duffy (US 2005/0172453) disclose a hinge comprising an extending member that connects to a rotational axis and a door.
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