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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/26 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/16/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/2/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner with respect to the information that is compliant. However, the Chinese Office Action filed in the information disclosure statement filed 4/2/26 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Although a search report which contains an "X", "Y", or "A" indication may serve as the statement of relevancy, that is not the case here as there are no "X", "Y", or "A" indications in the report, and there is no English statement such that any English letters/characters and/or relevancy can be gleaned from the document. Therefore, the examiner cannot be reasonably expected to ascertain any relevancy from the document because there are no English characters at all in the document. Therefore, the Chinese Office Action cited therein has not beconsidered by the examiner (unless cited within an Office Action). See MPEP 609.04(a)III.
The examiner reiterates the following statement from the previous Office Action- The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/2/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner with respect to the information that is compliant. However, two documents filed in the information disclosure statement filed 6/2/25 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Citation #23 on the IDS has not been considered (unless cited herein) as the document does not include English or a concise explanation of relevance. Citation #15 is also not in English and has not been considered. It is noted that applicants attempt to cite a corresponding US patent document in citation #15 on the IDS; however, the US documents are not listed separately on the IDS and thus have not been considered unless cited herein. See MPEP 609.04(a)III. Although a search report which contains an "X", "Y", or "A" indication may serve as the statement of relevancy, that is not the case here as there are no "X", "Y", or "A" indications in the report, and there is no English statement such that any English letters/characters and/or relevancy can be gleaned from the document. Therefore, the examiner cannot be reasonably expected to ascertain any relevancy from the document because there are no English characters at all in the document. Therefore, citations 15 and 23 remain unconsidered by the examiner (unless cited within an Office Action). See MPEP 609.04(a)III.
Response to Amendment
As to the amended claims and remarks filed on 1/16/26, the previous prior art rejection has been maintained. The examiner notes that applicants moved the limitations from claim 5 into claim 1.
Claim Status
Claims 1-4, 6-9 are pending.
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 fig. 7
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 1-4, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamato et al (US 20110123397; hereinafter “Yamato”; already of record) in view of Makino et al (US 20160291048; hereinafter “Makino”; already of record).
As to claim 1, Yamato teaches an automatic analyzing apparatus configured to measure a mixed liquid of a reagent and a measurement target sample to analyze components contained in the sample, the automatic analyzing apparatus (Yamato; Fig. 1-2, [29]) comprising:
a first conveyance path configured to convey a first container rack that holds a container housing the sample (Yamato teaches first conveyance path B conveying rack L with samples T; [34, 41], Fig. 2.);
a second conveyance path configured to convey a second container rack that holds a container housing at least one of a detergent solution for cleaning a probe for dispensing the sample, a diluent for diluting the sample, a buffer solution for mixing the sample, a solution used for a blank test with the sample, and a solution for performing calibration measurement for the automatic analyzing apparatus (Yamato teaches second conveyance path conveying rack 32 with containers for diluent; [41], Fig. 2.);
a sample dispensing mechanism that comprises the probe and configured so that the probe is able to aspirate a liquid housed in the container of the first container rack and a liquid housed in the container of the second container rack (Yamato teaches sample dispenser 22 which aspirates from first sample containers T at position 53 and also aspirates from rack 32; [34-36, 41], Fig. 2.); and
processing circuitry configured to control operations of the first conveyance path, the second conveyance path, and the sample dispensing mechanism (Yamato teaches a computer/control which would control all of the corresponding structures of the automated device; Fig. 1, 7, [77-81]), and
wherein the first conveyance path comprises an outgoing conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from a front side to a rear side of the automatic analyzing apparatus (Yamato teaches the racks on outgoing conveyance path B being moved along the X-axis from the front/right to the rear/left; Fig. 2).
Note: The instant Claims contain a large amount of functional language (ex: “configured to…”, “that…”, etc…). 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.
Yamato does not specifically teach a returning conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the rear side to the front side of the automatic analyzing apparatus, or a relay conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the outgoing conveyance path to the returning conveyance path, and the second conveyance path is between the outgoing conveyance path of the first conveyance path and the returning conveyance path of the first conveyance path. However, Makino teaches the analogous art of an analyzer with an outgoing conveyance path to convey the rack to the analyzer, and a returning conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the rear side to the front side of the automatic analyzing apparatus, a relay conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the outgoing conveyance path to the returning conveyance path, and the second conveyance path is between the outgoing conveyance path of the first conveyance path and the returning conveyance path of the first conveyance path (Makino teaches an outgoing path as the closet path to the analyzer from front/left to back/right, and a second conveyance path in the middle, with a return line to convey the racks back to the initial distribution mechanism and also to a buffer in case they need to be retested; Fig. 1, 2, [49-53, 64-65]. Makino teaches a relay path on the right side near 120 to send the rack to the return path from the outgoing path; Fig. 1, 2, [49-53, 64-65]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first conveyance path and second conveyance path which deliver separate racks to the analyzer of Yamato to have been configured such that each conveyance path passed by the analyzer system and included a sending the rack to the return conveyor via a relay path as in Makino because Makino teaches that connecting the lines and using the return conveyor helps to convey the racks back to the initial distribution mechanism (Makino; [50]) and also helps to return racks to the delivery conveyance line if a retest is needed to provide more accurate analysis results (Makino; [53]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first conveyance path and second conveyance path which deliver separate racks to the analyzer of Yamato to have been configured such that each conveyance path passed by the analyzer system and included a return conveyor as in Makino because Makino teaches that configuring the conveyance paths together enables the racks to be moved to multiple analysis systems thereby improving processing capacity and reducing device cost (Makino; [23]).
As to claim 2, modified Yamato teaches the automatic analyzing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second container rack on the second conveyance path is conveyed from a front side to a rear side of the automatic analyzing apparatus by the second conveyance path (Yamato teaches the racks being moved along the X-axis from the front/right to the rear/left; Fig. 2).
As to claim 3, modified Yamato teaches the automatic analyzing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a coagulation reaction cuvette holding part configured to hold a plurality of reaction cuvettes for coagulation measurement; and a colorimetric reaction cuvette holding part configured to hold a plurality of reaction cuvettes for colorimetric measurement, wherein the sample dispensing mechanism is configured to dispense liquid aspirated by the probe to the coagulation reaction cuvette holding part and the colorimetric reaction cuvette holding part (The examiner notes that the holding parts are not defined beyond that of regions for holding a plurality of cuvettes. Yamato teaches that sample dispenser 22 dispenses into a plurality of cuvettes on table 15 where half of the table is considered as holding coagulation reaction cuvettes and half of the table is considered as holding colorimetric reaction cuvettes; Fig. 2, [41, 162]. The examiner also notes that how the cuvettes are used is a matter of intended use and the actual detectors and reactions required for these specific reactions have not been recited or required in the claims. Additionally, the modification of the analyzer of Yamato to include conveyors past multiple analyzer units as in Makino has already been discussed above in claim 1, and Makino teaches a coagulation and colorimetric/biochemical analyzer; [13]).
As to claim 4, modified Yamato teaches the automatic analyzing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the first conveyance path and the second conveyance path are disposed side by side, and respectively convey the first container rack and the second container rack at least from a front side to a rear side of the automatic analyzing apparatus (Yamato teaches the paths as being side by side, and the racks being moved along the X-axis from the front/right to the rear/left; Fig. 2).
As to claim 7, modified Yamato teaches the automatic analyzing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the container of the second container rack houses the diluent (The examiner notes that what the container houses is a matter of intended use because neither the container nor the rack have been positively recited. Yamato teaches a diluent in the container; [41]); and the processing circuitry is configured to control the sample dispensing mechanism to perform an operation of dispensing the diluent held by the container of the second container rack to a reaction cuvette with the probe (Yamato teaches dispensing the diluent to a cuvette; [41], Fig. 2).
As to claim 8, modified Yamato teaches the automatic analyzing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the container of the second container rack houses the buffer solution (The examiner notes that what the container houses is a matter of intended use because neither the container nor the rack have been positively recited. Yamato teaches a diluent/buffer in the container; [41]); and the processing circuitry is further configured to control the sample dispensing mechanism to perform an operation of dispensing the buffer solution held by the container of the second container rack to the reaction cuvette with the probe (Yamato teaches dispensing the diluent/buffer to a cuvette; [41], Fig. 2).
As to claim 9, modified Yamato teaches the automatic analyzing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the container of the second container rack houses the solution for performing the calibration measurement (The examiner notes that what the container houses is a matter of intended use because neither the container nor the rack have been positively recited. Yamato teaches a diluent/solution for calibration in the container; [41]. The examiner notes that a diluent helps to ensure that measurements are concentrated correctly in order to provide accurate measurements by correcting the concentration, and therefore the diluent serves to help ensure that the measurements are accurate, thereby helping to correct/calibrate the measurement), and the processing circuitry is further configured to control the sample dispensing mechanism to perform an operation of dispensing the solution for performing calibration measurement for the automatic analyzing apparatus, the solution being held by the container of the second container rack, to the reaction cuvette with the probe (Yamato teaches dispensing the diluent/solution for calibration to a cuvette; [41], Fig. 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamato et al (US 20110123397; hereinafter “Yamato”; already of record) in view of Makino et al (US 20160291048; hereinafter “Makino”; already of record) in view of Kondou, K (US 20100104478; hereinafter “Kondou”; already of record) and in view of Mori et al (US 20200348325; hereinafter “Mori”; already of record).
As to claim 6, modified Yamato teaches the automatic analyzing apparatus according to claim 1, with the aspirating probe and processing circuitry, and the container of the second container rack housing solution (see above).
Yamato does not specifically the container of the second container rack houses the detergent solution, and the processing circuitry is configured to control the sample dispensing mechanism to perform a cleaning operation for the probe by aspirating detergent solution held by the container of the second container rack. However, Kondou teaches the analogous art of an analyzer with a sample dispensing probe (Kondou; Fig. 3) with the container of the second container rack houses the detergent solution, and processing circuitry controls the sample dispensing mechanism to perform a cleaning operation for the probe with detergent solution held by the container of the second container rack (Kondou teaches a computer control for controlling the automated analyzer; Fig. 1. Kondou teaches first rack 251 and second rack 140, where the second rack can include diluents and cleaning solutions 141; Fig. 3-5, [109, 128]. The examiner notes that what the container houses is a matter of intended use because neither the container nor the rack have been positively recited). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the rack that carries diluent of Yamato to also carry cleaning solution as in Kondou because Kondou teaches that this helps enable cleaning of the dispenser (Kondou; [109]).
Although modified Yamato does not specifically teach discharging the detergent solution, the examiner believes that because the sample dispensing mechanism aspirates and discharges solutions and because the sample aspirates detergent (Kondou; [109]) that the detergent would be discharged at some point in order to continue processing. However, Mori teaches the analogous art of an analyzer with a cleaning unit to clean the probe where the sample dispensing mechanism aspirates and discharges detergent at the cleaning unit (Mori teaches that detergent can be placed on the rack or in various other places, where the detergent is aspirated and then dispensed into the washing tank 13; [41, 53], Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the analyzer with the rack that includes aspirating a cleaning solution for a dispensing probe of modified Yamato to have aspirated the cleaning solution and dispensed it into a cleaning unit as in Mori because Mori teaches that the cleaning unit enables the sample probe to be washed and the solution to be disposed of to avoid contamination (Mori; [41]).
Other References Cited
The prior art of made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include;
Makino et al (US 20160291048; hereinafter “Makino”; already of record) teaches a coagulation and colorimetric/biochemical analyzer; [13].
Iwamatsu et al (US 20220404382; hereinafter “Iwamatsu”; already of record) teaches coagulation and colorimetric/biochemical analyzer; [21].
Takehara et al (US 20090215183; hereinafter “Takehara; already of record) teaches coagulation and colorimetric/biochemical analyzer; [2].
Horiuchi et al (US 20230204609; hereinafter “Horiuchi”; already of record) teaches an analyzer with cleaning rack with cleaning solutions, dilution agents, activators and controls; Fig. 1, 4-7. Horiuchi also teaches that colorimetric and coagulation analyzers are known; [63, 64].
Tamura et al (US 20030049170; hereinafter “Tamura”; already of record) teaches that the racks can include quality control racks; [73].
Suzuki et al (US 20040186360; hereinafter “Suzuki”; already of record) teaches that racks are known to include quality control and calibration reagents; Fig. 6.
Kurono et al (US 20130084212; hereinafter “Kurono”; already of record) teaches a cleaning unit; 31/32, Fig. 5.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/16/26 have been considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue on page 7-9 that each of prior art reference Yamato and Makino do not address “wherein the first conveyance path comprises an outgoing conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from a front side to a rear side of the automatic analyzing apparatus; a returning conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the rear side to the front side of the automatic analyzing apparatus; and a relay conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the outgoing conveyance path to the returning conveyance path, and the second conveyance path is between the outgoing conveyance path of the first conveyance path and the returning conveyance path of the first conveyance path”. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because applicants have not taken into account the previous descriptions or citations used in the previous Office Action, and therefore Applicant’s arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Further, 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). Applicants arguments do not take into account the modification of the Yamato and Makino to result in the claimed language. Yamato teaches a first conveyance path configured to convey a first container rack that holds a container housing the sample (Yamato teaches first conveyance path B conveying rack L with samples T; [34, 41], Fig. 2.); and a second conveyance path configured to convey a second container rack that holds a container housing at least one of a detergent solution for cleaning a probe for dispensing the sample, a diluent for diluting the sample, a buffer solution for mixing the sample, a solution used for a blank test with the sample, and a solution for performing calibration measurement for the automatic analyzing apparatus (Yamato teaches second conveyance path conveying rack 32 with containers for diluent; [41], Fig. 2.); wherein the first conveyance path comprises an outgoing conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from a front side to a rear side of the automatic analyzing apparatus (Yamato teaches the racks on outgoing conveyance path B being moved along the X-axis from the front/right to the rear/left; Fig. 2). Yamato does not specifically teach a returning conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the rear side to the front side of the automatic analyzing apparatus, or a relay conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the outgoing conveyance path to the returning conveyance path, and the second conveyance path is between the outgoing conveyance path of the first conveyance path and the returning conveyance path of the first conveyance path. However, Makino teaches the analogous art of an analyzer with an outgoing conveyance path to convey the rack to the analyzer, and a returning conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the rear side to the front side of the automatic analyzing apparatus, a relay conveyance path configured to convey the first container rack from the outgoing conveyance path to the returning conveyance path, and the second conveyance path is between the outgoing conveyance path of the first conveyance path and the returning conveyance path of the first conveyance path (Makino teaches an outgoing path as the closet path to the analyzer from front/left to back/right, and a second conveyance path in the middle, with a return line to convey the racks back to the initial distribution mechanism and also to a buffer in case they need to be retested; Fig. 1, 2, [49-53, 64-65]. Makino teaches a relay path on the right side near 120 to send the rack to the return path from the outgoing path; Fig. 1, 2, [49-53, 64-65]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first conveyance path and second conveyance path which deliver separate racks to the analyzer of Yamato to have been configured such that each conveyance path passed by the analyzer system and included a sending the rack to the return conveyor via a relay path as in Makino because Makino teaches that connecting the lines and using the return conveyor helps to convey the racks back to the initial distribution mechanism (Makino; [50]) and also helps to return racks to the delivery conveyance line if a retest is needed to provide more accurate analysis results (Makino; [53]). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the first conveyance path and second conveyance path which deliver separate racks to the analyzer of Yamato to have been configured such that each conveyance path passed by the analyzer system and included a return conveyor as in Makino because Makino teaches that configuring the conveyance paths together enables the racks to be moved to multiple analysis systems thereby improving processing capacity and reducing device cost (Makino; [23]).
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
Prosecution Insights