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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 (RCE 03/30/2026) has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasao (US 5,279,794) in view of Kuroda (US 2012/0003731 A1) or Shimase et al. (US 2014/0377132 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Sasao teaches:
12. An automatic analyzer comprising:
a dispensing nozzle (e.g., 5) capable of dispensing a specimen or a reagent (C4/L7-39+); and
a nozzle washing tank (e.g., 103) capable of washing the dispensing nozzle (C2/L9-65+), wherein
the nozzle washing tank includes a spraying portion (e.g., 1b) capable of spraying washing water (e.g., 104) to the dispensing nozzle and an opening (see i.e., inner hollow portion of the washing body 1; the arcuate transfer route of the sample probe 5, C5/L1-16) capable of taking the dispensing nozzle in and out (see Fig. 3 for example),
the spraying portion includes a first spraying portion (i.e., outlet of 1b) disposed on a side of the nozzle washing tank and is capable of spraying the washing water from the first spraying portion downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle (see flow pattern shown in Fig. 3 for example),
the opening is provided along a track (e.g., 1a, 1d) along which the dispensing nozzle is movable in a horizontal plane of the dispensing nozzle on a side surface of the nozzle washing tank (see i.e., [...] the sample from the sample tube 4 is moved towards the body 1 of the washing unit 103 substantially horizontally in a plane through the operation of the sample arm 100a as shown by a position of reference numeral 5a, C5/L35-39), and the opening includes an extending portion (i.e., channel-shaped waterway 2 portion, C4/L61) extending outward from a surface of the nozzle washing tank along the track (see Fig. 2 for example),
the nozzle washing tank includes a roof capable of covering the nozzle washing tank on both sides of the track (see annotated Fig. 2), wherein a lower surface of the roof is an inclined surface in which a side closer to the track is higher than a side farther from the track (see Fig. 3 for example), and
a bottom surface of the extending portion is inclined toward the nozzle washing tank (see Fig. 3 for example).
Annotated Fig. 2 of Sasao (US 5,279,794)
PNG
media_image1.png
1718
1998
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Sasao does not explicitly teach: the spraying portion includes a first spraying portion and a second spraying portion that are disposed on opposite sides of the nozzle washing tank and are configured such that the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle,
Kuroda teaches: An automatic analyzer comprising:
a dispensing nozzle (e.g., 50) which dispenses a specimen or a reagent (¶ 0059+); and
a nozzle washing tank (e.g., 60) which washes the dispensing nozzle (¶ 0068-0071+), wherein
the nozzle washing tank includes a spraying portion (e.g., 61) spraying washing water (e.g. L2) to the dispensing nozzle and an opening (e.g., 60) for taking the dispensing nozzle in and out (see Figs. 4, 8 for example),
the spraying portion includes a first spraying portion (e.g., 61a) and a second spraying portion (e.g., 61a) that are disposed on opposite sides of the nozzle washing tank (see Fig. 8 for example) and are configured such that the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle (see Fig. 8 for example), and
a bottom surface of the nozzle washing tank is inclined toward the nozzle washing tank (see ¶ 0072 for example).
Shimase et al. teach: An automatic analyzer comprising:
a dispensing nozzle (e.g., 2) which dispenses a specimen or a reagent (¶ 0045+); and
a nozzle washing tank (e.g., 110, 111) which washes the dispensing nozzle (¶ 0047+), wherein
the nozzle washing tank includes a spraying portion (e.g., 5) spraying washing water (¶ 0040+) to the dispensing nozzle and an opening (e.g., 3) for taking the dispensing nozzle in and out (see Fig. 2 for example),
the spraying portion includes a first spraying portion (e.g., 5) and a second spraying portion (e.g., 5) that are disposed on opposite sides of the nozzle washing tank (see Fig. 2 for example) and are configured such that the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle (see Fig. 2 for example),
the nozzle washing tank includes a roof (e.g., 9) configured to cover the nozzle washing tank (see Fig. 4A for example), and
a bottom surface of the nozzle washing tank is inclined toward the nozzle washing tank (see Fig. 3 for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the nozzle washing tank of Sasao with the teachings of Kuroda, for the purpose of providing the spraying portion with a first spraying portion (e.g., 61a) and a second spraying portion (e.g., 61a) that are disposed on opposite sides of the nozzle washing tank (see Fig. 8 for example) and are configured such that the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle (see Fig. 8 for example). Overall design would allow cutting the washing time and reducing the amount of washing water (Kuroda ¶ 0028); or Shimase et al., for the purpose of providing the spraying portion with a first spraying portion (e.g., 5) and a second spraying portion (e.g., 5) that are disposed on opposite sides of the nozzle washing tank (see Fig. 2 for example) and are configured such that the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle (see Fig. 2 for example). Overall design would reduce maintenance frequency, as well as prevent the cleaning water from splashing (Shimase et al. ¶ 0068-0069). The Court stated that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
With regard to limitations in claims 12 and 17 (e.g., which dispenses a specimen or a reagent, which washes the dispensing nozzle, [...] the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, modified Sasao teaches:
13. The automatic analyzer according to claim 12, wherein a width of the extending portion is narrower than a width of the nozzle washing tank (see annotated Fig. 2 for example).
17. The automatic analyzer according to claim 12, wherein the nozzle washing tank has a bottom portion inclined toward a drain pipe (e.g., 7) capable of discharging the washing water (see Fig. 2 for example).
Claim(s) 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al. (JP 2011-21993, see Google translated version) in view of Kuroda (US 2012/0003731 A1) or Shimase et al. (US 2014/0377132 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Shinohara et al. teach:
12. An automatic analyzer comprising:
a dispensing nozzle (e.g., 142c) capable of dispensing a specimen or a reagent (see Description P3-4); and
a nozzle washing tank (e.g., 200) capable of washing the dispensing nozzle (see Description P3-4), wherein
the nozzle washing tank includes a spraying portion (e.g., 208) spraying washing water to the dispensing nozzle and an opening capable of taking the dispensing nozzle in and out (see Figs. 3-4 for example),
the spraying portion includes a first spraying portion (e.g., 208) and a second spraying portion (e.g., 208) that are disposed on opposite sides of the nozzle washing tank (see Fig. 3 for example) and are capable of spraying the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion downward at an angle (it is noted that discharged fluid from pipes 208 would flow downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle),
the opening is provided along a track (e.g., cleaning mechanism guide 201) along which the dispensing nozzle is movable in a horizontal plane of the dispensing nozzle on a side surface of the nozzle washing tank (see i.e., The cleaning mechanism that is moved by the cleaning mechanism moving means is guided by a rail that is disposed on a rotation trajectory of the probe by the probe moving means, P2/~¶ 5; The cleaning mechanism guide 201 is formed in a rail shape, and is provided so that the interval is slightly wider than the width of the moving base 204 in the cleaning mechanism 200 as shown in FIG., P7/¶ 4), and the opening includes an extending portion extending outward from a surface of the nozzle washing tank along the track (see Figs. 2, 6 for example),
the nozzle washing tank includes a roof (see e.g., walls 202 forming a roof in Fig. 3) capable of covering the nozzle washing tank on both sides of the track (see i.e., the cleaning mechanism 200 is formed so as to be surrounded by the walls 202 and 202. P6/¶ 6), wherein a lower surface of the roof is an angled surface in which a side closer to the track is higher than a side farther from the track (see the wall portions 202 (roof) are erected in a direction away from the top surface of the automatic analyzer 100 on which the reaction disk 130 and the disk sampler 141 are installed, and are disposed to face each other (P6/¶ 6), and a lower surface of the wall portions 202 (roof) is positioned at an angle to guide the discharge ports 206 (P7/¶ 2, 8 & Fig. 3), and
a bottom surface of the extending portion is inclined toward the nozzle washing tank (see Fig. 3 for example).
However, Shinohara et al. do not explicitly teach: the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion are configured such that the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle.
See Kuroda & Shimase et al. above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the nozzle washing tank of Shinohara et al. with the teachings of Kuroda, for the purpose of providing the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion are configured such that the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle (see Fig. 8 for example). Overall design would allow cutting the washing time and reducing the amount of washing water (Kuroda ¶ 0028); or Shimase et al., for the purpose of providing the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion are configured such that the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle (see Fig. 2 for example). Overall design would reduce maintenance frequency, as well as prevent the cleaning water from splashing (Shimase et al. ¶ 0068-0069). The Court stated that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Regarding claim 12, Shinohara et al. do not explicitly teach: wherein a lower surface of the roof is an inclined surface. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the wall portions 202 (roof), wherein a lower surface of the roof is an inclined surface in which a side closer to the track is higher than a side farther from the track, so as to direct the cleaning liquid from the discharge ports 206 towards the sampling probe 142c. This would further reduce splashing of the cleaning liquid if it is being discharged directly to one another. Varying a surface angle is merely a design choice that would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art according the cleaning liquid from the discharge ports being directed.
With regard to limitations in claims 12 and 17 (e.g., which dispenses a specimen or a reagent, which washes the dispensing nozzle, [...] the washing water from the first spraying portion and the second spraying portion sprays downward at an angle toward a tip of the dispensing nozzle, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
Regarding claim 17, modified Shinohara et al. teach: 17. The automatic analyzer according to claim 12, wherein the nozzle washing tank has a bottom portion inclined toward a drain pipe for discharging the washing water (see Fig. 3 & P3/¶ 5 for example).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al. (JP 2011-21993, see Google translated version) in view of Kuroda (US 2012/0003731 A1) or Shimase et al. (US 2014/0377132 A1), and further in view of Sasao (US 5,279,794).
Regarding claim 13, modified Shinohara et al. do not explicitly teach: wherein a width of the extending portion is narrower than a width of the nozzle washing tank.
See Sasao above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the nozzle washing tank of Shinohara et al. with a width of the extending portion is narrower than a width of the nozzle washing tank, as taught by Sasao et al. since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claim is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device. As stated by the Court in KSR, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one”, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (emphasis added), or solves a problem which is different from that which the applicant was trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2141.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant is thanked for their thoughtful amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights