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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 1 and 3-10 are pending and under examination.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Based on the amended claims and remarks received on 03/27/2026, the previous prior art rejection over Ryuichi has been modified to address the amended claims (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 1, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryuichi et al. (translation of JP 2013-185980A; already of record – hereinafter “Ryuichi”) in view of Koichi et al. (translation of JP 2006-084366A; already of record – hereinafter “Koichi”) and Shengnan et al. (translation of CN 209356517U – hereinafter “Shengnan”).
Regarding claim 1, Ryuichi disclose an automatic analyzer (Ryuichi; fig. 1, #100, [0037]) comprising:
a reagent refrigerator that stores a reagent container (Ryuichi; fig. 5, #119, [0037]) in which a reagent to be reacted with a sample is accommodated (Ryuichi; [0037, 0048]), the reagent refrigerator including a reagent jacket that encloses the reagent container in the reagent refrigerator (Ryuichi; fig/ 5, #122b, [0056-0057, 0061, 0085]);
a refrigerant cooling unit that is configured to cool the reagent refrigerator by using a refrigerant (Ryuichi teach cold water circulator 123 that uses cold water to cool the reagent refrigerator 119 via path 122; fig. 5, [0060]);
an outside air intake unit that is configured to take in outside air to positively pressurize an inside of the reagent refrigerator with respect to a circumference of the reagent refrigerator (Ryuichi disclose air introduction device 124 that cools the inside of the reagent refrigerator 119 via path 121 which encompasses the circumference of the reagent refrigerator. The outside air pressurizes the reagent refrigerator to atmospheric pressure or higher; fig. 5, [0060, 0066, 0074]);
a blowing air cooling unit that is arranged and configured to blow cooling air obtained by cooling the outside air by using the refrigerant to the inside of the reagent refrigerator (Ryuichi disclose a blowing air cooling unit comprised of heat transfer partition 122b, routing plates 132, ports 125, 128, and channels 121(121a), 127 which cools the outside air using the cooling water 122d along a route R1/R2; figs. 3-5, [0059, 0061, 0069-0072, 0084-0085]);
wherein the blowing air cooling unit includes:
a first flow channel that introduces the cooling air to the inside of the reagent refrigerator (Ryuichi; fig. 5, #121a, #125, #127, #128, [0056, 0058, 0082]); and
a second flow channel that discharges dew condensation water generated by the blowing air cooling unit to a drain (Ryuichi; fig. 5, #130, [0065]),
wherein the reagent refrigerator includes a third flow channel that discharges dew condensation water generated by the reagent refrigerator to the drain (Ryuichi; fig. 5, #121b/125 connected to drain pipe 130; [0065, 0085]),
wherein the first flow channel and the second flow channel are formed to be joined with the third flow channel (Ryuichi; fig. 5, 121a/121b/125 connected to drain pipe 130; [0085]), and a water storage unit storing the dew condensation water is provided nearer the drain side than a point where the second flow channel and the third flow channel are joined with each other so as not to leak the cooling air outside (Ryuichi disclose pipe 130 comprise a valve 131. Dew condensate is stored in the pipe 130 until valve 131 is opened; fig. 5, [0085]); and
a fourth flow channel arranged in a space inside the reagent jacket and in contact with an inner side surface of the reagent jack, wherein the fourth flow channel is configured such that the refrigerant circulating through at least one circumference of the reagent jack in a space inside the reagent jacket (Ryuichi; figs. 5, #122a, #122c, [0054, 0056-0061]).
Ryuichi does not teach the blowing air cooling unit is arranged outside the reagent refrigerator.
However, Koichi teach the analogous art of an automatic analyzer (Koichi; [0008]) comprising a reagent refrigerator that stores a reagent container (Koichi; figs1-2 & 4, [0009, 0014]), and a blowing air cooling unit that is arranged outside the reagent refrigerator (Koichi disclose a cooler adjacent to the reagent storage unit that circulates cool air into the reagent storage chamber through an introduction port “IN” and a discharge port “OUT” in the reagent chamber. An introduction chamber adjacent to the cooler is used to introduce air to the reagent storage through the introduction port and a discharge chamber adjacent to the cooler is used to discharge air from the reagent storage back to the cooler; figs. 1-2 & 4, [0009, 0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the blowing air cooling unit of Ryuichi to be outside the reagent refrigerator, as taught by Koichi, because Koichi teaches the blowing air cooling unit that is arranged outside the reagent refrigerator can prevent water droplets condensed on the inner surface of the upper wall of the reagent cooler from dropping into the reagent bottle (Koichi; [0006]). Further, the modification is merely a rearrangement of parts of Ryuichi which would not patentably distinguish over the prior art because the particular placement of parts is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP. 2144.04(VI)(C). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Ryuichi and Koichi both teach reagent coolers that blow cool air into the reagent cooler to generate a positive pressure.
Modified Ryuichi does not teach the water storage unit including a U-shaped portion between the point where the second flow channel and the third flow channel are joined and the drain.
However, Shengnan teach the analogous art of an automatic analyzer (Shengnan; fig. 3, #1, [42]) comprising a reagent refrigerator including a flow channel that discharges dew condensation water to a drain port (Shengnan; fig. 3, #2, #3, [42-43]), and a water storage portion including a U-shaped portion between the channel and the drain (Shengnan; fig. 3, #8, [44]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the water storage unit of modified Ryuichi to comprise a U-shaped portion between the channel and drain, as taught by Shengnan, because Shengnan teaches the U-shaped portion can form a sealed water column for preventing air from entering while also allowing water to be discharged (Shengnan; [44]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Ryuichi and Shengnan both teach draining dew condensate from a reagent cooler to a drainage system.
Regarding claim 5, modified Ryuichi teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1, wherein the outside air intake unit is arranged on a lower side of the reagent refrigerator and the blowing air cooling unit in a vertical direction (Ryuichi; fig. 5, #124, [0060]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ryuichi teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein the blowing air cooling unit includes a blowing air channel through which the outside air taken in from the outside air intake unit is introduced to the first flow channel (Ryuichi; figs. 3-5, #124a, [0070]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Ryuichi teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above further comprising:
a reaction liquid measurement unit (Ryuichi; fig. 1, #116, [0049]); and
a control unit (Ryuichi; [0050]),
wherein the control unit controls the refrigerant cooling unit, the outside air intake unit, the blowing air cooling unit, and the reaction liquid measurement unit (Ryuichi teach controlling the temperature of the reagent cooler to 5-12˚C using a controller for controlling the drive and drive timing of each component of the automatic analyzer; [0003, 0009-0011, 0050, 0065]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryuichi in view of Koichi and Shengnan, and further in view of Inoue (US 2015/0346069; already of record – hereinafter “Inoue”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Ryuichi teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, comprising the blowing air cooling unit.
Modified Ryuichi does not teach, wherein the blowing air cooling unit is arranged next to the reagent refrigerator in a horizontal direction.
However, Inoue teach the analogous art of a storage chamber for storing a container (Inoue; fig. 1, #1, [0023]) and a blowing air cooling unit (Inoue; fig. 1, #100, [0039]) wherein the blowing air cooling unit is arranged next to the storage chamber in a horizontal direction (Inoue; fig. 1, #100, #11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the blowing air cooling unit of modified Ryuichi to be arranged next to the chamber for storing a container, as taught by Inoue, because Inoue teaches the blowing air cooling unit arranged next to the chamber for storing a container allows the integration of a dehumidifier section to dehumidify the air to be supplied into the chamber (Inoue; abstract). Further, the modification is merely a rearrangement of parts of modified Ryuichi which would not patentably distinguish over the prior art because the particular placement of parts is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP. 2144.04(VI)(C). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable excitation of success since modified Ryuichi and Inoue both teach cool air blowing units arranged outside of a storage chamber for cooling a liquid container.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryuichi in view of Koichi and Shengnan, and further in view of Niiyama et al. (US 2018/0164336; already of record – hereinafter “Niiyama”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ryuichi teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 1 above, wherein comprising the refrigerant cooling unit, the reagent refrigerator, and the blowing unit.
Modified Ryuichi does not teach the refrigerant cooling unit is arranged on a lower side of the reagent refrigerator and the blowing air cooling unit in a vertical direction.
However, Niiyama teach the analogous art of an automatic analyzer (Niiyama; [0001]) comprising a reagent refrigerator (Niiyama; figs. 1-2, #100, [0026]), and a refrigerant cooling unit that is arranged on a lower side of the reagent refrigerator in a vertical direction (Niiyama; fig. 2, #121, [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the refrigerant cooling unit of modified Ryuichi to be on a lower side of the reagent refrigerator in a vertical direction, as taught by Niiyama, because Niiyama teach the refrigerant cooling unit arranged on a lower side of the reagent refrigerator in a vertical direction reduces upper and lower temperature differences inside the reagent refrigerator (Niiyama; [0006]). Further, the modification is merely a rearrangement of parts of modified Ryuichi which would not patentably distinguish over the prior art because the particular placement of parts is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP. 2144.04(VI)(C). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Ryuichi and Niiyama both teach cooling a reagent container in a reagent refrigerator with a reagent cooling unit.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryuichi in view of Koichi and Shengnan, and further in view of Hiroya et al. (translation of JPH 05337376A; already of record – hereinafter “Hiroya”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ryuichi teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 6 above, comprising the blowing air channel.
Modified Ryuichi does not teach wherein the blowing air channel is spirally configured.
However, Hiroya teach the analogous art of a cooling channel (Hiroya; fig. 3, #65, [0017]) where in the cooling channel is spirally configured (Hiroya; fig. 3, #65, 0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the blowing air channel of modified Ryuichi to be spirally configured, as taught by Hiroya, because the spiral configuration increases residence time in the cooling channel thereby increase energy exchange between hot side channel and cold side channel. Further, the modification is merely a change in shape of modified Ryuichi which would not patentably distinguish over the prior art because the particular shape of parts is considered to be an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP. 2144.04(IV)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Ryuichi and Hiroya both teach channels for heat exchange between a hot side and cold side.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryuichi in view of Koichi and Shengnan, and further in view of Yoon (US 2012/0138025; already of record – hereinafter “Yoon”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ryuichi teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 6 above, wherein the blowing air channel is configured in a shape opened upward in a vertical direction (Ryuichi; fig. 5, #121, [0056]).
Modified Ryuichi does not teach the blowing air channel is configured in a U-shape.
However, Yoon teach the analogous art of a blowing air channel configured in a U-shape (Yoon; fig. 3, [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the blowing air channel of modified Ryuichi to be configured in a U-shape, as taught by Yoon, because Yoon teach the U-shape blowing air channel increases the cooling efficiency by increasing the channel length (Yoon; [0040]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Ryuichi and Yoon both teach system for cooling air.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryuichi in view of Koichi and Shengnan, and further in view of Makino et al. (US 2015/0104351; already of record – hereinafter “Makino”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ryuichi teach the automatic analyzer according to claim 9 above, comprising the control unit and liquid measurement unit.
Modified Ryuichi does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit has an output unit for outputting a display screen, and a measurement result of the reaction liquid measurement unit is displayed on the display screen.
However, Makino teach the analogous art of an automatic analyzer (Makino; fig. 1, #1, [0073]) comprising a control system (Makino; fig. 1, #50, [0071]), display device (Makino; fig. 1, #59, [0072]) and a measurement unit (Makino; fig. 1, #41, [0063]), wherein the control unit has an output unit for outputting a display screen, and a measurement result of the reaction liquid measurement unit is displayed on the display screen (Makino; [0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the automatic analyzer, control, and liquid measurement unit of modified Ryuichi to be configured such that the control unit has an output unit for outputting a display screen, and a measurement result of the reaction liquid measurement unit is displayed on the display screen, as taught by Makino, because Makino teaches the display device configured to output the measurement results on the display screen allows an operator to check analysis obtained after the measurement using the display (Makino; [0078]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Ryuichi and Makino both teach an analysis device for detecting analytes in a sample.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/27/2026, have been fully considered.
Applicant argues on pages 5-7 of their remarks toward the 103 rejection over Ryuichi in view of Koichi and Shengnan that the cited references do not teach the amended limitation “a fourth flow channel arranged in a space inside the reagent jacket and in contact with an inner side surface of the reagent jacket, wherein the fourth flow channel is configured such that the refrigerant circulates through at least one circumference of the reagent jacket in a space inside the reagent jacket”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ryuichi teach a triple wall structure of the reagent cooler 119 that includes a flow channel 121 for the cooling air and a flow channel 122 for the refrigerant. The flow channel 122 for the refrigerant is formed on an inner side surface 122c of the reagent jacket 122b, where the refrigerant circulates around the circumference of the
reagent jacket 122b through flow path 122a. See Ryuichi fig. 5 and paragraphs [0055-0061].
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:
Beasley et al. (US 2003/0075478) disclose a sample chamber with a hollow metal jacket/coils surrounding the chamber, through which heat exchange fluid is circulated to cool and heat a sample.
Conklin (US Patent No. 3,122,911) disclose a sample chamber mounted in a cooling jacket which has refrigerant circulating through the jacket.
Zeamer (US Patent No. 4,870,838) disclose a sample chamber surrounded by a cryogen jacket through which a cryogen circulates to cool the sample.
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
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights