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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 11-14 and 16-19 are pending and under examination.
Claims 1-10 and 15 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Based on the amended claims and remarks received on 02/19/2026, the previous prior art rejection over Dupont has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection is set forth (see below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont et al. (US 2005/0013739; already of record – hereinafter “Dupont”) in view of Massey et al. (WO 2017/188915A1 where US 2020/0330629 is used as the corresponding document – hereinafter “Massey”).
Regarding claim 11, Dupont disclose an automatic analyzer (Dupont; figs. 1 & 2, #100, #200, [0041, 0078]) comprising:
an analysis module that analyzes a specimen (Dupont; figs. 1 & 2, #18, #218, [0059, 0078]); and
a supply system that supplies a liquid to the analysis module (Dupont; figs. 1 & 2, #23, #223, [0041, 0061]), wherein the supply system includes:
a buffer tank that temporarily stores the liquid supplied from the outside of the analyzer (Dupont; figs. 1 & 2, #14, “E”, [0041, 0057, 0066]);
a supply channel through which the liquid in the buffer tank is sent to the analysis module (Dupont; figs. 1 & 2, #15, #251, #252, #253, [0059, 0066, 0074-0077]);
a liquid feeding pump that feeds the liquid in the buffer tank (Dupont disclose a recirculation pump 13 connected to recirculation loop 17; figs. 1 & 2, #13, #17, #217, [0058, 0066]. The examiner notes fig. 1 of Dupont shows two pumps as reference character 13. A pump connected to the outlet of the degassing module 11 and a pump connected to the recirculation loop 17 and check valve 22. See paragraph [0058] of Dupont “the storage tank 14 is in fluid communication with the inlet of the UV treatment module 9 to cause the water in the final purification section to flow in a loop (the recirculation loop 17 integrates the storage tank 14), thanks in particular to a recirculation pump 13 and a check valve 22 … The pump 13 also provides the vacuum pump function necessary for operation of the degassing module 11”);
a circulation channel through which the liquid discharged from the liquid feeding pump is returned to the buffer tank (Dupont disclose liquid is discharged from feeding pump 13 and returned to the buffer tank 14 through recirculation loop 17/217, figs. 1 & 2, #17, #217, [0058, 0066]);
a sterilization unit that sterilizes the liquid in the supply system (Dupont; figs 1 & 2, “D”, [0056, 0067-0071]);
a control unit that controls an operation of each device in the supply system (Dupont; fig. 2, #254, [0033-0035, 0078, 0080-0081]); and
the control unit drives the sterilization unit in the case where the liquid is supplied to the buffer tank from the outside of the analyzer (Dupont disclose water is supplied from the outside via solenoid valve 1; fig. 1, #1, [0041], and a control unit 254 for controlling the sterilization and purification of the water supplied to the buffer tank 14; figs. 2, #254, “D”, [0033-0035, 0067-0068, 0078, 0080-0081]),
wherein the circulation channel returns a part of the liquid that is branched from the supply channel and is discharged from the liquid feeding pump to the buffer tank (Dupont disclose recirculation channel 17/217 returns part of the liquid that is branched from the supply channels 251/253 and is discharged from the recirculation pump 13 to the buffer tank 14; figs. 1 & 2, #13, #17, #217, #251, #253, [0058, 0074-0077]), and
wherein the sterilization unit sterilizes the liquid that flows on the upstream side relative to a branch unit of the supply channel and the circulation channel in the supply channel (Dupont disclose sterilization unit “D” sterilizes liquid that flows on the upstream side relative to a branch unit 217/251 and 217/253 of the supply channel 251 and 253 and the circulation channel 217 in the supply channel 251/253; fig. 2, [0074-0077]).
Dupont does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit adjusts the liquid feeding speed of the liquid feeding pump on the basis of an operation of the sterilization unit such that at a timing when the sterilization unit is not operated a discharge amount of the liquid feeding pump is increased to increase the liquid feeding speed, and at a timing when the sterilization unit is operated the discharge amount of the liquid feeding pump is decreased to decrease the liquid feeding speed.
However, Massey teach the analogous art of a sterilization unit that sterilizes liquid in a supply system (Massey teach UV disinfectant system 106 comprising an inflow port 113; figs. 11, 12 & 13, [0057]), a liquid feeding pump that feeds the liquid (Massey teach liquid to be treated is pumped into the chamber 112 through inflow port 113; figs. 11 & 13, #161, [0057, 0064]), and a control unit that controls an operation of each device (Massey; fig. 13, #175, [0064]), wherein the control unit adjusts the liquid feeding speed of the liquid feeding pump on the basis of an operation of the sterilization unit such that at a timing when the sterilization unit is not operated a discharge amount of the liquid feeding pump is increased to increase the liquid feeding speed (Massey teach terminating power to sterilization bulbs when the liquid flow meter measure no flow; [0010, 0066]. In other words, upon restarting flow of the liquid (i.e. increasing the liquid feeding speed), the sterilization bulb would be powered off until a set point flow condition is detected), and at a timing when the sterilization unit is operated the discharge amount of the liquid feeding pump is decreased to decrease the liquid feeding speed (Massey teach reducing pump speed when the liquid temperature sensor measures a liquid temperature below a liquid temperature setpoint; [0010, 0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control, liquid feeding pump, and sterilization unit of Dupont to be configured such that the control unit adjusts the liquid feeding speed of the liquid feeding pump on the basis of an operation of the sterilization unit such that at a timing when the sterilization unit is not operated a discharge amount of the liquid feeding pump is increased to increase the liquid feeding speed, as taught by Massey, because Massey teach controlling the system using various set point parameters allows an operator to define desired operational criteria and prevent thermal damage to components of the system (Massey; [0074]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Dupont and Massey teach controlling a sterilization unit and modifying various parameters to adapt the water at the outlet to a desired requirement.
Regarding claim 12, modified Dupont teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 11 above, wherein the control unit drives the sterilization unit in the case where the liquid is supplied to the analysis module from the buffer tank (Dupont; fig. 2, [0033-0035, 0077-0078, 0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Dupont teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 11, wherein the control unit drives the sterilization unit when a start-up operation of the automatic analyzer is performed (Dupont disclose “the electronic controls of the analyzer means and the purification means are functionally interconnected … the analyzer means and the purification means include a common control unit adapted to control and monitor the analyzer means and the purification means simultaneously”; fig. 2, [0033-0035, 0077-0078, 0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Dupont teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 11 above, wherein the control unit drives the sterilization unit when a shutdown operation of the automatic analyzer is performed (Dupont disclose “the electronic controls of the analyzer means and the purification means are functionally interconnected … the analyzer means and the purification means include a common control unit adapted to control and monitor the analyzer means and the purification means simultaneously”; fig. 2, [0033-0035, 0077-0078, 0080-0081]).
Regarding claim 16, modified Dupont teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 11 above, further comprising a cleanliness measurement unit that measures the cleanliness of the liquid, wherein the control unit controls an operation of the sterilization unit on the basis of the cleanliness of the liquid measured by the cleanliness measurement unit (Dupont disclose a sensor for measuring conductivity of the water functionally connected to the control unit 254 which determines the purity of the water; [0081]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Dupont teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 11 above, further comprising a liquid temperature measurement unit that measures the temperature of the liquid, wherein the control unit controls an operation of the sterilization unit on the basis of the temperature of the liquid measured by the liquid temperature measurement unit (Dupont disclose a sensor for measuring temperature of the water functionally connected to the control unit 254 which determines the purity of the water; [0081]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Dupont teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 11 above, wherein the control unit operates the sterilization unit when a specific operation is detected in the analysis module (Dupont disclose the control units of the analyzer means and the purification means are functionally interconnected to enable feedback from the control unit of the analyzer means to the control unit of the water purification means; [0034]. Electronic control unit 254 for the modules A-D of the water treatment system, which is functionally connected to a central unit 255 of the analyzer system 218 of the analyzer 200; [0078]. The central unit 255 of the analyzer 200 can operate on the water treatment system 223 via the control unit 254 and modify various parameters thereof to adapt the water at the outlet of the unit D to its requirements in real time; [0080]).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupont in view of Massey, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2016/0377586; already of record – hereinafter “Takahashi”).
Regarding claim 19, modified Dupont teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 11 above, wherein the branch unit is directly connected to the analysis module (Dupont teach a distributor connecting the branch unit to the analysis module 18; figs 1 & 2, [0059]).
Modified Dupont does not teach the branch unit is directly connected to the analysis module via a solenoid valve.
However, Takahashi teach the analogous art of supplying liquid that flows through a supply channel connect to an analysis module (Takahashi teach a water tank 1 connected to a hardness measurement cell 2 via line 11; fig. 1, [0132]), wherein the supply liquid is connected to the analysis module via solenoid valve (Takahashi teach solenoid valve 5 between the water tank 1 and hardness measurement cell 2; fig. 1, [0132]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the distributor of modified Dupont with a solenoid valve, as taught by Takashi, because Takahashi teach the solenoid valve is may be controlled by a sensor based on the detection amount of liquid (Takahashi; [0132]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Dupont and Takahashi teach liquid storage tanks connected to analysis units via a channel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argues on pages 5-6 of their remarks that Dupont does not teach or suggest the amended limitations of claim 11 including “wherein the control unit adjusts a liquid feeding speed of the liquid feeding pump based on an operation of the sterilization unit, such that at a timing when the sterilization unit is not operated a discharge amount of the liquid feeding pump is increased to increase the liquid feeding speed, and at a timing when the sterilization unit is operated the discharge amount of the liquid feeding pump is decreased to decrease the liquid feeding speed”. The examiner agrees and notes that the arguments are towards the amended limitations and do not apply to the current ground(s) of rejection. Accordingly, the previous prior art rejection of Dupont has been withdrawn and a new prior art rejection set forth over Dupont in view of Massey.
Massey teach controlling the operation of devices including pumps, bulbs, fans, etc. in a sterilization unit. Specifically, Massey teach controlling the devices according to set point values where a controller is instructed to terminate power to sterilization bulbs when the liquid flow meter measure no flow; [0010, 0066]. In other words, upon restarting flow of the liquid (i.e. increasing the liquid feeding speed), the sterilization bulb would be powered off until a set point flow condition is detected. Massey further teach reducing pump speed when the liquid temperature sensor measures a liquid temperature below a liquid temperature setpoint; [0010, 0066]. In this case, the sterilization bulbs would be powered on since flow is detected while the pump reduces flow. Accordingly, Dupont in view of Massey teach the amended limitations of claim 11.
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:
Ellner (US Patent No. 3,948,772) disclose a split stream sterilization unit that controls the discharge of a liquid feed through a recirculation unit until a desired purification is reached.
Hamilton (US 2001/0046461) disclose a sterilization unit and controller configured to reduce the flow of untreated water into a chamber if the power of the UV sources are starting to decrease.
Boschert (US 2011/0260077) disclose a tank, sterilization unit, and pump that circulates liquid in the tank, wherein the sterilization unit and pump are controlled to operated based on timers and pump speed.
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
Prosecution Insights