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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-25, in the reply filed on September 16th, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 26-29 are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because item ‘410’ is used to designate “stirring mechanism” and “rotation mechanism”. Further, the measuring device ‘10’ appears to be drawn to the “stirring mechanism”/”rotation mechanism” ‘410’(or a combination thereof).
“Rotation mechanism” is additionally referenced as numeral ‘413’ (see par.[0101] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2023/0168262), which also labels the “rotation mechanism” as ’410’).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
1) Transport device that transports containers as in claim 14.
2) Measuring device configured to stir a sample…and measure the stirred sample as in cls. 14, 17, and 18.
3) Cooling unit for cooling the container as in cl. 24.
4) Heating unit cooling the container as in cl. 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
1) Those elements as disclosed in pars.[0090-0094] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2023/0168262, and equivalents thereof.
2) A stirring mechanism/rotation mechanism and a pair of grips* that sandwich the container, and at least one of an electrical resistance detector, hemoglobin SLS detector (i.e. photometric detector), and optical detector, and equivalents thereof (see par.[0101,0138] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2023/0168262), however, clarification is required*
3) A Peltier device, evaporative compression type cooling device including a compressor or equivalents thereof (see par.[0320]).
4) An aluminum block heater or a Peltier element and equivalents thereof (see pars.[0075,0320]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the quality control sample". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner notes that the preamble of the claims utilizes “…quality control samples…”
Does Applicant intend to recite something on the order of –
-a step of providing a plurality of quality control samples
-a step of stirring a first of the plurality of quality control samples in a first operation mode
etc…
Or does Applicant intend to recite the steps of stirring/measuring with respect to the plurality (i.e. the quality control samples)?
Further, the recitation “…wherein the stirring in the first operation mode is a stirring method different from the stirring method…for stirring a subject sample collected from a subject” is indefinitely defined in its metes and bounds.
Initially, recitation to a “stirring method” concordant with “the stirring” is indefinitely understood.
The claim does not provide “a stirring method,” as the claims merely provide a step of stirring, which calls into question if Applicant desires further steps thereafter that amount to a “stirring method” as recited herein. The confluence of the stirring is a stirring method is indefinitely defined and unclearly provided.
Secondly, the comparison sought in the second clause is indefinitely understood as it is drawn to a comparison to an element that is without any positive basis in the claims themselves.
The method is missing actively recited step(s) to such a stirring method in a second operation mode for stirring a different sample (herein provided as a subject sample).
A “stirring method in a second operation mode for stirring a subject sample collected form a subject” is not drawn to active and positively provided steps thereto, but is a recitation to an external provision. This amounts to a comparison to the existence of any outside stirring method of a sample differing therefrom.
Does Applicant intend to recite the active step(s) involved in the stirring of a subject sample amounting to a second operation mode and differentiating this/these active step(s) in this second operation mode from that of the first operation mode?
Additionally, the usage of “fist operation mode” and “second operation mode” are indefinitely understood herein.
With respect to the “first operation mode,” Examiner asserts that the claim actively provides a step of stirring as defining such “first operation mode,” and if further step(s) are intended by “in a first operation mode,” than those positive steps should be introduced as this otherwise reads as stirring in whatever manner constitutes the first operation mode.
Examiner further notes that the “stored in a cold state” is merely a descriptor provided in the preamble, and the body of the claim does not positively provide any particular steps thereto. If Applicant intends to provide patentable weight in this respect, Applicant is invited to positively claim the related steps.
These issues pervade into the dependent claims in which the dependent claims infer the positive inclusion of such stirring in a second operation mode, however, no such steps are positively provided in the claims and this “second operation mode” is drawn to an external provision not particularly provided in the claims.
With regards to claims 4 and 5, the recitations to “the container” lack proper antecedent basis in the claims. A container is not positive established in the claims.
Further, the recitations to automatically removing the container from the storage and transporting the removed cartridge to a measuring device are indefinitely provided as the claims do not actively claim steps of providing a storage storing a plurality of containers and providing a measuring device for receiving/measuring the containers. This can be similarly seen as it pertains to claim 5.
Further, it is noted that as in claims 6-11, the recitation to “the container” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
It is additionally noted in claim 10, recitation to “the container” is further unclearly understood as it is related to the second operation mode which is with respect to a subject sample and thus would be expected to be held by a different container from that of the first operation mode.
With regard to claims 6-8, the metes and bounds of the confines/angular disposition of the container sought with respect to the relative terms “bottom part” and “top part” are indefinitely defined herein. It appears the claim is speaking to inverting the container back and forth, however, the general and relative terminology “bottom part” and “top part” without particular structural definition thereto calls into question the sought disposition of the container during the claimed stirring.
With regard to claim 10, the metes and bounds of the recitation “an impact” are indefinitely understood herein. The act of stirring a sample in a container implicitly implies impacts as interacting forces are involved in order to accomplish the stirring of the sample/solution, such that the absence of an “impact” is indefinitely understood in the context of carrying out stirring as claimed.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification in par.[0153-0154] discusses an “impact” in terms of lowering the container to a vertical state so that the magnet 519 and the metal member 520 are brought into contact with each other, however, the present claim 10 is not coincident with this so as to breathe this particular definition of “impact” (and lack thereof in a stirring method that precludes the movement of the container to a vertical state and precluding the magnet and metal member from contacting one another) into the claims. Clarification is required.
With regard to claim 11, the recitations “the circumferential direction” lack antecedent basis in the claims and thus provides unclear metes and bounds to the stirring sought.
With regards to claims 2, 12 and 13, the metes and bounds of the claims are indefinitely defined with respect to “presence or absence of preliminary stirring.”
Related independent claim 1 recites stirring in a first operation mode, wherein there are no further active steps given to the first operation mode beyond that of stirring.
The recitations in claims 2, 12 and 13 amount to determination of an unknown, as the active method provided to the “first mode” is that of stirring.
The recitation of “presence or absence of preliminary stirring” additionally may point to a detection or sensing operation that takes place before the step of stirring to ascertain particularly-sized perturbations in the fluid that are indicative of “preliminary stirring.”
This is similarly seen with respect to claim 13 in which claim 13 sets forth choices to particular actions connected with preliminary stirring, however, the metes and bounds of the claim remain indefinitely defined as discussed above, as the claims do not clearly set forth the active steps of the method being further introduced to that of those provided in the independent claim 1.
The discussion to “preliminary stirring” is drawn to an unknown, external/previously carried out step outside of the claimed methodology as presently recited. Clarification is required.
With regards to claims 14-25, it is noted that the “measuring device configured to stir…” appears to be recited as a stirring mechanism/rotation mechanism and a pair of grips (i.e. gripping mechanism) that sandwich the container and equivalents thereof (see par.[0101] of Applicant’s pre-grant publication US 2023/0168262), however, the actual, corresponding structure of the “measuring device configured to stir” is indefinitely understood herein.
First – “measuring device configured to stir” is generally discussed in par.[0100] as including a stirring mechanism 410, a front-rear transfer unit 420, a reading unit 430, a piercer 441, and a piercer drive unit 442.
Similar discussion to the “measuring device” is provided in par.[0136], however, herein discussion is made with respect to a liquid transfer unit, sample preparation unit, measuring unit 403 and a communication unit 404.
Is the “measuring device” drawn to the combination of the stirring mechanis, the rotation mechanism, and the measuring unit? Are the sample preparation unit and communication unit also a part of it?
These recitations in and of themselves amount to alternative “means-for” recitations in that of “stirring mechanism” and “rotation mechanism,” wherein it appears the stirring mechanism is a pair of grips, vertical drive mechanism, gripping mechanism, and rotation mechanism(see pars[0101,0107]), however, such discussion is problematic as the stirring mechanism references the rotation mechanism as a part thereof wherein such parts appeared previously to be distinct and separate elements.
Clarification is required as to the concordant structure(s) that make-up the recited “measuring device configured to stir…” as recited in the claims, including independent claim 14 and namely dependent claims 17 &18 and related dependents thereof.
It is further noted that recitations to the various “stirring” and first/second operation modes of stirring and delineated differences therein are not attributed patentable weight in the sense of these active steps being carried out as the claims is drawn to a device with individual elements having the capability/functionality (herein “configured to”) to cause such first/second operation modes as recited throughout the claims.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9-12, as best understood herein, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Ait Bouzisad et al. (US 2020/0391165), hereafter Ait.
Ait discloses a food processing system and method (abstract). With regard to claim 1, Ait discloses a quality control measurement method for measuring as claimed comprising a step of stirring the quality control sample in a first operation mode, a step of measuring the stirred quality control sample, and wherein the stirring in the first operation mode is a stirring method different from the stirring method in a second operation mode for stirring a subject sample collected (pars.[0059-0068] wherein a first food processed by its given recipe is construed as a quality control sample and a second food processed by its given different recipe [i.e. different mixing by total time, hydration, reconstitution], and such quality control sample [and subsequent subject samples are measured for various parameters to assure optimal control and preparation of the samples; see par.[0061]). Examiner further asserts that “quality control sample” and “subject sample” are drawn to nominal designations given to the samples.
Examiner additionally notes that, as discussed above in the 35 USC 112 2nd/b section, the comparison to a second operation mode throughout the claims with respect to a subject sample is drawn to a provisional and prospective comparison that is external from the claimed methodology and the claims do not recite additional active steps thereto such second operation mode in order to positively establish such and its differentiating features. Further, as discussed above, Examiner notes that Ait is not deficient in this respect even assuming proper active recitations given in the claims as Ait discloses preparing second food samples (or further additional ones) by a different operation mode from that of the first operation mode.
With regard to claim 2, the stirring in the first operation mode and the stirring in the second operation mode (which is not positively provided herein) differ in as much as recited and required herein claim 2 (i.e. the number of times of stirring as given by stirring/mixing time or mixing speed; see pars.[0057,0059,0065], for example).
With regard to claims 3 and 9, the stirring by the first operation mode is enhanced as compared with the stirring by the second operation mode (i.e. a quality control sample food produced with any one of a longer mixing time (i.e. number of times of stirring as in cl. 9), greater mixing speed, or greater temperature as compared to a prospective second operation mode with a subject sample at one of a relatively lesser mixing time (i.e. lesser number of times of stirring as in cl. 9), lesser mixing speed, or lesser temperature).
With regard to claim 11, Ait discloses that the stirring in the first operation mode includes rotating the container in the circumferential direction and the stirring in the second operation mode (which is not positively provided for as discussed above and is a prospective mode) does not include stirring in the circumferential direction (par.[0054], wherein it is disclosed that rotation may be provided in opposing directions and thus a quality control sample is in the circumferential direction and the subject sample is not in the circumferential direction as it is in the opposing circumferential direction).
With regard to claim 12, Ait discloses that the first and second operation modes differ in presence or absence of preliminary stirring wherein the first operation mode includes the preliminary stirring and the second operation mode ((which is not positively provided for as discussed above and is a prospective mode) does not include the preliminary stirring in as much as recited and understood herein and given by processing of the quality control sample by a greater number of mixing times as opposed to a second, different subject sample at a lower number mixing times that precludes preliminary stirring as delineated as the additional times in the first operation mode.
Claim(s) 14-18, 20, and 21, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Pressman et al. (US 2003/0092186), hereafter Pressman.
Pressman discloses an automated system and method for processing multiple liquid-based specimens (abstract). With regard to claim 14, Pressman discloses a transport device 240 that transports containers and a measuring device(constituted by the gripping collet that lifts and spins the vial to spin and stir (and as in cls. 17&18), and LEDs with corresponding photosensors for the measuring of the sample; pars.[0018,0197,0227], for example) that is configured to stir a sample in the container transported by the transport device and measure the stirred sample (pars.[0017,0018,0126,0197,0221,0227], figs, for example). Examiner further asserts that the recitations to “wherein the measuring device stirs…[a quality control sample/subject sample]…” and “wherein the stirring in the first operation mode is different from the stirring in the second operation mode” are drawn to process recitations not afforded patentable weight in a device claim. As discussed above, Pressman discloses all of the positively recited structural elements of the claimed analyzer and arranged as claimed wherein such device of Pressman is fully capable of stirring in as much as recited and required herein and in different manners such as by affording different on/operating time periods. This is likewise seen with respect to claims 15, 16, 20, and 21, wherein such recitations are drawn to process recitations not afforded patentable weight in a device claim and the device of Pressman is commensurately structured and arranged as claimed and fully capable thereof in as much as recited and required herein. With regard to claim 18, Pressman discloses that the system has a processing assembly 40 to carry out several functions including mixing, and the container has a bar code label containing information concerning the specimen placed in the vial and processing instructions and that is read by a bar code reader 230 (reading unit) before passing through the processing stations that includes the mixing and deposition stations (pars.[0017,0093,0123,0147,0149]).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 4 and 5, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ait in view of Ferrer et al. (US 2010/0318217), hereafter Ferrer.
Ait has been discussed above.
Ait does not specifically disclose automatically removing the container from the storage and transporting the removed container to a measuring device as recited in claims 4 and 5.
Ferrer discloses a method and gripping device for automatically transferring a sample container from a storing location to an analysis location (abstract, for example).
Further, as in cl. 5, Ait discloses controlling the temperature of the container dependent upon the sample to be processed (pars.[0018,0058], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ait to provide automatically removing the container from the storage and transporting the removed container to a measuring device as recited in claims 4 and 5 such as suggested by Ferrer in order to provide a secure and automated mechanism for removing containers from storage and transporting them to the measuring device for processing such as to increase throughput of sample food processing as likewise desired in Ait (see par.[0063])
Claim(s) 6-8 and 13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ait in view of Bartick et al. (USPN 6,579,002), hereafter Bartick.
Ait has been discussed above.
Ait does not specifically disclose that the stirring comprises oscillating as recited in claim 6, and wherein the stirring in the first operation mode is different than the second mode in an angle through which the container is oscillated wherein a first angle at the first operation mode is greater than a second angle at the second operation mode as in cl. 7, and the first and second operation modes differ in oscillation speed in which the first operation mode is oscillated at a larger oscillation speed as in cl. 8. Ait further does not particularly disclose that the preliminary stirring includes at least one of those elements as in cl. 13.
Bartick discloses a broad-range large-load fast-oscillating high-performance reciprocating programable laboratory shaker (abstract). Bartick discloses stirring by oscillating the container between a first angle at which a bottom part of the container is lower than a top part of the container and a second angle in which the bottom part is higher than the top part, and wherein the first and second angles are different by way of differing oscillation displacements, and the oscillation speeds are afforded a dynamic operational range that affords various different samples to be processed and mixed effectively (lines 23-46, col. 4; lines 18-35, col. 5; lines 8-27, col. 7;lines 25-37, col. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Ait so as to provide stirring comprises oscillating as recited in claim 6, and wherein the stirring in the first operation mode is different than the second mode in an angle through which the container is oscillated wherein a first angle at the first operation mode is greater than a second angle at the second operation mode as in cl. 7, and the first and second operation modes differ in oscillation speed in which the first operation mode is oscillated at a larger oscillation speed as in cl. 8, and providing preliminary stirring by way of grasping and oscillating such as suggested by the analogous art of Bartick in the field of mixing samples so as to afford an obvious alternative means of stirring to that of mixing blades and which provides a dynamic range of operability in order to suitably affect mixing to a variety of samples in an effective fashion.
Claim(s) 19, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressman in view of Gross et al. (US 2021/0086153), hereafter Gross.
Pressman has been discussed above.
With regard to claim 18, Pressman discloses that the system has a processing assembly 40 to carry out several functions including mixing, and the container has a bar code label containing information concerning the specimen placed in the vial and processing instructions and that is read by a bar code reader 230 (reading unit) before passing through the processing stations that includes the mixing (which provides oscillatory rotation to spin and stir/mix) and deposition stations (pars.[0017,0093,0123,0147,0149]).
Pressman does not specifically disclose that the rotation mechanism is included in a reading unit that reads identification information attached to a side of the container as in cl. 19.
Gross discloses a servo-robotic asymmetric rotational mixer and system wherein the scanner may be communicatively integrated with the mixer control system so that the scanned information is provided to the servo controller of the mixer via the HMI and may be displayed thereat and which may then communicate with the robotic controller (par.[0036], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pressman to provide the rotation mechanism is included in a reading unit that reads identification information attached to a side of the container such as suggested by the analogous art of Gross in that of automated mixing in which such a provision provides to integrate the bar code reader with the mixer in order to directly correlate the scanning of the information that informs the processing of the sample, particularly designated as including mixing as in Pressman, so as to provide clear and direct correspondence in carrying out the desired processing of the sample by mixing in an integrated fashion and as would be appreciated by Pressman. See also MPEP 2144V, B.
Claim(s) 22 and 23, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressman in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2013/0125628), hereafter Kitagawa.
Pressman has been discussed above.
Pressman does not specifically disclose the analyzer further comprising a supply device including a storage for storing the container containing a quality control sample as in cls. 22 and 23.
Kitagawa discloses a blood cell counter and counting method in which the transporting unit includes a sample rack L (supply device including a storage for storing the container) and the transport device transports the sample rack to a predetermined position to supply the sample containers to the measurement unit (par.[0051], figs., for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pressman to further include a supply device as in cls. 22 and 23 such as suggested by the analogous art of Kitagawa to automated sample processors in order to increase throughput of processing by connecting a sample container supply device with the transport unit.
Examiner further asserts the recitations to “wherein the transport device transports…the measuring device stirs…” and likewise as in cl. 23 are drawn to process recitations not afforded patentable weight, and wherein the prior art of Pressman/Kitagawa provides to commensurately disclose all of the positively claimed structural element of the device and is fully capable of such processes in as much as recited and required herein.
Claim(s) 24 and 25, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressman in view of Kitagawa as applied above to claims 22 and 23 above, and in further view of Holmes et al. (US 2016/0069918), hereafter Holmes.
Pressman/Kitagawa does not specifically disclose that the supply device includes a cooling unit and a heating unit as recited in claims 24 and 25, respectively.
Holmes discloses a biological sample processing device in which the transport assembly may have at least one storage area that is cooled below ambient temperature (implicitly providing a cooling unit therefor) for the sample vessels and at least one storage area that is heated to bring a cartridge to a processing temperature (implicitly providing a heater unit therefor) (par.[0053], for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Pressman/Kitagawa to include the supply device with a cooling unit and a heating unit such as suggested by Holmes in the analogous art of sample processing in order to provide on-board means for preserving the samples below ambient temperature and for heating samples to temperatures necessary for processing conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEIL N TURK whose telephone number is (571)272-8914. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
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, Jill Warden can be reached at 571 272-1267. 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.
/NEIL N TURK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights