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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending and under examination.
Claim 10 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, received 07/06/2026, have overcome the claim objections. Therefore, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn. However, new claim objections have been set forth.
The amended claims have overcome the 112(b) rejection(s) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 07/06/2026. However, based on the amendments, new 112(b) rejection(s) have been set forth.
In view of the amended claims and remarks, the previous prior art rejection over Nogawa has been modified to address the amended claims (see below).
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11-13 refer to “a left end of the second passage”. Claim 1 lines 7-8 have been amended to recite “one end of the second passage is a grabbing position for the extraction strip and is a left end”. The examiner requests applicant amends “a left end” to “the left end” in claims 11-13.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 17-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
13. Claims 17-19 recite “a pushing member … a transverse movement assembly”. Claim 1 lines 11-13 have been amended to recite “a pushing member … a transverse movement assembly”. It is unclear if applicant is intending to refer to “the pushing member” and “the transverse movement assembly”, or if applicant is intending to introduce additional pushing members and another transverse movement assembly. For purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting the claims to refer to “the pushing member” and “the transverse movement assembly” recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogawa et al. (US 2007/0202011; already of record – hereinafter “Nogawa”), in view of Gwynn et al. (US 2013/0132006; already of record – hereinafter “Gwynn”), and Zou et al. (US 2020/0011886; already of record – hereinafter “Zou”).
Regarding claim 1, Nogawa disclose an automatic loading system for a strip (Nogawa disclose an automatic analyzer that automatically loads a strip 2; fig. 1, [0023, 0028]), comprising:
a strip configured to hold a plurality of vessels (Nogawa; fig. 1, #2, ]0023]),
a first passage (Nogawa; figs. 2, #24, [0030]),
a second passage which is parallel and adjacent to the first passage (Nogawa; fig. 2, #26, [0030]),
a first pushing device configured to push the strip to move in the first passage (Nogawa; fig. 2, #42, [0033]),
a second pushing device configured to push the strip to move in the second passage (Nogawa; fig. 2, #44, [0033]), and
a transfer device configured to transfer the strip from the first passage to the second passage (Nogawa; fig. 2, #25, [0033]),
wherein one end of the first passage is a loading inlet for the strip (Nogawa teach upper end of the first passage 24 where strip 2 is stopped by stopper 45 and loaded by pushing mechanism 40; fig. 2, [0030, 0033]),
one end of the second passage is a grabbing position for the strip and is a left end (Nogawa teach upper end of the second passage 26 where strip 2 is extracted by take-up mechanism 28; fig. 2, [0030]. Note: The upper end of the second passage 26 where strip 2 is extracted by take-up mechanism 28 is a left end when observed from the emergency rack supply section 46 and looking towards the first and second passages 24, 26.), and
the transfer device is arranged at another end of the first passage and another end of the second passage (Nogawa teach transfer device 25 arranged at the other end of the first and second passages; fig. 2, [0033]); and
both the first pushing device and the second pushing device are configured to move left and right (Nogawa teach the first pushing device 42 and second pushing device 44 are reciprocal pushing mechanism; figs. 1-5, [0033]. An observer standing on the left side of the automatic loading system and facing towards the first passage 24 and the second passage 26 would observe the pushing devices as being configured to move left and right; fig. 1).
wherein the first pushing device and the second pushing device each comprise a pushing member configured to move to push the strip to move, and a transverse movement assembly configured to drive the pushing member to move transversely (Nogawa disclose the pushing member 42 is configured to transverse the first passage and pushing member 44 is configured to transverse the second passage; figs. 2-5, [0033, 0035]), wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly (Nogawa disclose the pushing member 42 is configured to traverse the first passage and pushing member 44 is configured to traverse the second passage 44; figs. 2-5, [0033, 0035]); and
wherein the pushing member comprises a left pusher, a right pusher configured to be used in cooperation with the left pusher (Nogawa disclose the pushing member comprises a bar that extends lengthwise across the passage with a left and a right extension that work in cooperation to push the racks; figs. 2-5).
Nogawa does not teach the strip is an extraction strip configured to hold a plurality of reagents vessels wherein an avoidance hole is defined in the extraction strip. However, Gwynn teach the analogous art of an automatic loading system (Gwynn; fig. 1(b), [0183, 0185]), wherein the automatic loading system is for an extraction strip configured to hold a plurality of reagents (Gwynn; figs. 1(b) & 4(a)-1, #200, #204, #208, #209, [0187, 0275]) and comprises an avoidance hole defined in the extraction strip (Gwynn; fig. 4(a)-1, #244, [0046, 0318]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the strip configured to hold a plurality of vessel of Nogawa with the extraction strip configured to hold a plurality of reagents and comprising an avoidance hole, as taught by Gwynn, because Gwynn teach the extraction strip configured to hold a plurality of reagents provides the necessary materials to perform various analyses (Gwynn; [0275]) and the avoidance hole prevents an incorrect type of extraction strip from being misloaded into the designated area (Gwynn; [0318]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since Nogawa and Gwynn both teach transport and loading of strips for use in analysis systems.
Modified Nogawa does not teach the first and second pushing device, or left and right pusher, are configured to move up and down, and comprise a second lifting device configured to drive the left pusher and the right pusher to synchronously move up or down, wherein the left pusher and the right pusher are vertically arranged, and wherein the left pusher and the right pusher, which have been lowered pass the extraction strip. However, Zou teach the analogous art of an automatic loading system for a strip (Zou; fig. 1, [0036]) comprising a first passage (Zou; fig. 1, #45, [0036]), a second passage (Zou; fig. 2, #46, [0036]), and a first and second pushing device configured to push the strip to move in the passages (Zou; figs. 1 & 7-10, #48, #49, [0037]) each pushing device comprising a pushing member(Zou; fig. 8, #9, [0048]) with a left and right pusher arranged vertically (Zou; figs. 8 & 10, #9.2, [0055]), wherein the first and second pushing device and the left and right pusher are configured to move left and right and to move up and down (Zou; figs. 7-10, [0048-0055]), wherein the first and second pushing device comprise a second lifting device configured to drive the left pusher and the right pusher to synchronously move up or down to allow the left and right pusher which have been lowered to pass the extraction strip (Zou; figs. 8 & 10, [0052-0055]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first pushing device and second pushing device configured to move left and right of modified Nogawa with the first and second pushing with vertically arranged left and right pushers and configured to move up and down to pass the extraction strip, as taught by Zou, because Zou teach the first and second pushing device configured to move up and down allows the pushing device to move the sample forward while simultaneously preparing for pushing of the next sample upon returning to its initial position (Zou; [0054]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Nogawa and Zou both teach loading system for conveying strips between parallel passages.
Regarding claim 2, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 1 above, further comprising a frame (Nogawa teach the loading system as an independent unit interposed between an analyzing unit 14 and a rack accommodating section 23, thus comprising a frame; figs. 1 & 2, [0031); and the frame is arranged to surround an outer periphery of the first passage and an outer periphery of the second passage (Nogawa teach the first passage 24 and second passage 26 are transport paths with a separation barrier and side walls which confine the strip within the transport path; figs. 2-5. Accordingly, the strip is surrounded by a frame around the first passage and the second passage).
Modified Nogawa does not teach wherein a length of the first passage is the same as a length of the second passage.
However, Zou teach the analogous art of an automatic loading system for a strip (Zou; fig. 1, [0036]) comprising a first passage (Zou; fig. 1, #45, [0036]) and a second passage (Zou; fig. 2, #46, [0036]), wherein a length of the first passage is the same as a length of the second passage (Zou; fig. 1, #45, #46, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first passage and the second passage of modified Nogawa to have the same length, as taught by Zou, because Zou teach the first passage and the second passage having the same length allows the sample feed track 42 and advancing track 43 to run perpendicular with both the first and second passages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Nogawa and Zou both teach loading system for conveying strips between parallel passages.
Regarding claim 3, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 2 above, wherein the transfer device is arranged on a right side of the frame and is configured to move forward and backward along the right side of the frame (Nogawa teach the transfer device 25 on a side of the frame; fig. 2, #25, [0033]). Further, an observer standing on the left side of the automatic loading system and facing towards the first passage 24 and the second passage 26 would observe the transfer device as being configured to move forward and backwards along the right side of the frame; figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 4, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 1 above, wherein the first passage and the second passage each are provided with a sliding groove for the extraction strip to slide transversely (Nogawa teach the first passage 24 and second passage 26 are transport paths with a separation barrier and side walls which confine the strip within the transport path; figs. 2-5. Accordingly, the strip is transported through a sliding groove of the first and second passages).
Regarding claim 5, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 1 above, wherein a right end of the first passage is provided with a separation position (Nogawa; fig. 2, #48, [0033]), a first sensor configured to detect whether the extraction strip reaches the separation position (Nogawa; figs. 2-5, #72, [0033]),; and a left end of the second passage is provided with a second sensor configured to detect whether the extraction strip reaches the grabbing position (Nogawa; figs. 2-5, #77, [0032, 0039]).
Nogawa does not explicitly teach a first back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip on a right end of the first passage or a second back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip.
However, Nogawa does teach a first back pushing device configured to push back the strip on a left end of the first passage (Nogawa; fig. 5, #40, [0042-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first passage and the second passage of modified Nogawa such that the right end of the first passage is provided with a first back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip and the left end of the second passage is provided with a second pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip, because modifying the first back pushing device to be on the right end of the first passage is merely a rearrangement of parts which is as an obvious matter of design choice that would provide the additional benefit of outputting a strip to a transport line at the right end of the first passage (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)), and modifying the back pushing device to be on the left end of the second passage is merely a duplication of parts that would reduce the operational travel distance of the second pushing device 44, thus increasing processing efficiency of the automatic loading system (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since it is merely a matter of design choice based on the configuration of transport lines connected to the automatic loading system.
Regarding claim 11, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 2 above, wherein a right end of the first passage is provided with a separation position (Nogawa; fig. 2, #48, [0033]), a first sensor configured to detect whether the extraction strip reaches the separation position (Nogawa; figs. 2-5, #72, [0033]); and a left end of the second passage is provided with a second sensor configured to detect whether the extraction strip reaches the grabbing position (Nogawa; figs. 2-5, #77, [0032, 0039]).
Nogawa does not explicitly teach a first back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip on a right end of the first passage or a second back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip.
However, Nogawa does teach a first back pushing device configured to push back the strip on an end of the first passage (Nogawa; fig. 5, #40, [0042-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first passage and the second passage of modified Nogawa such that the right end of the first passage is provided with a first back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip and the left end of the second passage is provided with a second pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip, because modifying the first back pushing device to be on the right end of the first passage is merely a rearrangement of parts which is as an obvious matter of design choice that would provide the additional benefit of outputting a strip to a transport line at the right end of the first passage (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)), and modifying the back pushing device to be on the left end of the second passage is merely a duplication of parts that would reduce the operational travel distance of the second pushing device 44, thus increasing processing efficiency of the automatic loading system (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since it is merely a matter of design choice based on the configuration of transport lines connected to the automatic loading system.
Regarding claim 12, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 3 above, wherein a right end of the first passage is provided with a separation position (Nogawa; fig. 2, #48, [0033]), a first sensor configured to detect whether the extraction strip reaches the separation position (Nogawa; figs. 2-5, #72, [0033]); and a left end of the second passage is provided with a second sensor configured to detect whether the extraction strip reaches the grabbing position (Nogawa; figs. 2-5, #77, [0032, 0039]).
Nogawa does not explicitly teach a first back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip on a right end of the first passage or a second back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip.
However, Nogawa does teach a first back pushing device configured to push back the strip on an end of the first passage (Nogawa; fig. 5, #40, [0042-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first passage and the second passage of modified Nogawa such that the right end of the first passage is provided with a first back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip and the left end of the second passage is provided with a second pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip, because modifying the first back pushing device to be on the right end of the first passage is merely a rearrangement of parts which is as an obvious matter of design choice that would provide the additional benefit of outputting a strip to a transport line at the right end of the first passage (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)), and modifying the back pushing device to be on the left end of the second passage is merely a duplication of parts that would reduce the operational travel distance of the second pushing device 44, thus increasing processing efficiency of the automatic loading system (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since it is merely a matter of design choice based on the configuration of transport lines connected to the automatic loading system.
Regarding claim 13, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 4 above, wherein a right end of the first passage is provided with a separation position (Nogawa; fig. 2, #48, [0033]), a first sensor configured to detect whether the extraction strip reaches the separation position (Nogawa; figs. 2-5, #72, [0033]); and a left end of the second passage is provided with a second sensor configured to detect whether the extraction strip reaches the grabbing position (Nogawa; figs. 2-5, #77, [0032, 0039]).
Nogawa does not explicitly teach a first back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip on a right end of the first passage or a second back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip.
However, Nogawa does teach a first back pushing device configured to push back the strip on an end of the first passage (Nogawa; fig. 5, #40, [0042-0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first passage and the second passage of modified Nogawa such that the right end of the first passage is provided with a first back pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip and the left end of the second passage is provided with a second pushing device configured to push back the extraction strip, because modifying the first back pushing device to be on the right end of the first passage is merely a rearrangement of parts which is as an obvious matter of design choice that would provide the additional benefit of outputting a strip to a transport line at the right end of the first passage (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C)), and modifying the back pushing device to be on the left end of the second passage is merely a duplication of parts that would reduce the operational travel distance of the second pushing device 44, thus increasing processing efficiency of the automatic loading system (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B)). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since it is merely a matter of design choice based on the configuration of transport lines connected to the automatic loading system.
Claims 6-7 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogawa in view of Gwynn and Zou, and further in view of Wang et al. (Translation of CN 105334232A; already of record – hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 1 above.
Modified Nogawa does not teach wherein the left end of the second passage is provided with a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate the extraction strip.
However, Wang teach the analogous art of an automatic loading system (Wang; figs. 1 & 4, #10, [46]) comprising a passage provided with a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article (Wang; figs. 1 & 5-6, #213/217, [50, 60-61]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grabbing position for the extraction strip of modified Nogawa to comprise a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article, as taught by Wang, because Wang teach the jacking device configured to move up and down allows the article to be lifted to an output section 30 having a different elevation from the passage (Wang; figs. 1-2 & 7, [54, 60-61]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 6 above, wherein the jacking device comprises a pushing plate configured to extract the extraction strip (The modification of the grabbing position for the extraction strip of modified Nogawa to comprise a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article, as taught by Wang, has previously been discussed in claim 6 above. Nogawa further teach a claw pushing plate 28 configured to extract the strip; figs. 25, [0030]), and a first lifting device configured to drive the pushing plate to move up and down, wherein the pushing plate is horizontally arranged, and the first lifting device is a rack-and-pinion mechanism (The modification of the grabbing position for the extraction strip of modified Nogawa to comprise a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article, as taught by Wang, has previously been discussed in claim 6 above. Wang teach a rack 217 and pinion 213 as a first lifting device to drive up and down; fig. 5, [50, 60-61]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 2 above.
Modified Nogawa does not teach wherein the left end of the second passage is provided with a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate the extraction strip.
However, Wang teach the analogous art of an automatic loading system (Wang; figs. 1 & 4, #10, [46]) comprising a passage provided with a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article (Wang; figs. 1 & 5-6, #213/217, [50, 60-61]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grabbing position for the extraction strip of modified Nogawa to comprise a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article, as taught by Wang, because Wang teach the jacking device configured to move up and down allows the article to be lifted to an output section 30 having a different elevation from the passage (Wang; figs. 1-2 & 7, [54, 60-61]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 3 above.
Modified Nogawa does not teach wherein the left end of the second passage is provided with a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate the extraction strip.
However, Wang teach the analogous art of an automatic loading system (Wang; figs. 1 & 4, #10, [46]) comprising a passage provided with a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article (Wang; figs. 1 & 5-6, #213/217, [50, 60-61]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grabbing position for the extraction strip of modified Nogawa to comprise a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article, as taught by Wang, because Wang teach the jacking device configured to move up and down allows the article to be lifted to an output section 30 having a different elevation from the passage (Wang; figs. 1-2 & 7, [54, 60-61]).
Regarding claim 16, Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 4 above.
Modified Nogawa does not teach wherein the left end of the second passage is provided with a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate the extraction strip.
However, Wang teach the analogous art of an automatic loading system (Wang; figs. 1 & 4, #10, [46]) comprising a passage provided with a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article (Wang; figs. 1 & 5-6, #213/217, [50, 60-61]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the grabbing position for the extraction strip of modified Nogawa to comprise a jacking device configured to move up and down to separate an article, as taught by Wang, because Wang teach the jacking device configured to move up and down allows the article to be lifted to an output section 30 having a different elevation from the passage (Wang; figs. 1-2 & 7, [54, 60-61]).
Claims 8 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogawa in view of Gwynn and Zou, and further in view of Koike (US 2006/0216199; already of record – hereinafter “Koike”).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 1 above.
Modified Nogawa does not explicitly teach the transverse movement assembly is a synchronous belt mechanism.
However, Koike teach the analogous art of a pushing device (Koike; figs. 4-5, #22, [0062-0063]) comprising a transverse movement assembly configured to drive a pushing member to move transversely (Koike; figs. 7-9, #22a, #237a, #237b, [0063]), wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly, and the transverse movement assembly is a synchronous belt mechanism (Koike; figs. 7-9, #225, [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first pushing device comprising the transverse movement assembly of modified Nogawa with the pushing device comprising the transverse movement assembly as a synchronous belt mechanism, as taught by Koike, because Koike teach the synchronous belt mechanism allows the pushing member to transverse a strip in a forward or backward direction (Koike; figs. 7-9, [0065]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Nogawa and Koike both teach automatic loading systems that push strips in a passage.
Regarding claim 17, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 2 above, wherein the first pushing device and the second pushing device each comprise a pushing member configured to move up and down to push the extraction strip to move (The modification of the first pushing device 42 and second pushing device 44 configured to move left and right of modified Nogawa with the first pushing device and the second pushing configured to move left and right and to move up and down, as taught by Zou, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Zou further teach each pushing device 48/49 comprise a pushing member 9; fig. 8, [0048]), and a transverse movement assembly configured to drive the pushing member to move transversely (Nogawa disclose the pushing member 42 is configured to traverse the first passage and pushing member 44 is configured to traverse the second passage 44; figs. 2-5, [0033, 0035]), wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly (Nogawa disclose the pushing member 42 is configured to traverse the first passage and pushing member 44 is configured to traverse the second passage 44; figs. 2-5, [0033, 0035]).
Modified Nogawa does not explicitly teach the transverse movement assembly is a synchronous belt mechanism.
However, Koike teach the analogous art of a pushing device (Koike; figs. 4-5, #22, [0062-0063]) comprising a transverse movement assembly configured to drive a pushing member to move transversely (Koike; figs. 7-9, #22a, #237a, #237b, [0063]), wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly, and the transverse movement assembly is a synchronous belt mechanism (Koike; figs. 7-9, #225, [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first pushing device comprising the transverse movement assembly of modified Nogawa with the pushing device comprising the transverse movement assembly as a synchronous belt mechanism, as taught by Koike, because Koike teach the synchronous belt mechanism allows the pushing member to transverse a strip in a forward or backward direction (Koike; figs. 7-9, [0065]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Nogawa and Koike both teach automatic loading systems that push strips in a passage.
Regarding claim 18, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 3 above, wherein the first pushing device and the second pushing device each comprise a pushing member configured to move up and down to push the extraction strip to move (The modification of the first pushing device 42 and second pushing device 44 configured to move left and right of modified Nogawa with the first pushing device and the second pushing configured to move left and right and to move up and down, as taught by Zou, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Zou further teach each pushing device 48/49 comprise a pushing member 9; fig. 8, [0048]), and a transverse movement assembly configured to drive the pushing member to move transversely (Nogawa disclose the pushing member 42 is configured to traverse the first passage and pushing member 44 is configured to traverse the second passage 44; figs. 2-5, [0033, 0035]), wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly (Nogawa disclose the pushing member 42 is configured to traverse the first passage and pushing member 44 is configured to traverse the second passage 44; figs. 2-5, [0033, 0035]).
Modified Nogawa does not explicitly teach the transverse movement assembly is a synchronous belt mechanism.
However, Koike teach the analogous art of a pushing device (Koike; figs. 4-5, #22, [0062-0063]) comprising a transverse movement assembly configured to drive a pushing member to move transversely (Koike; figs. 7-9, #22a, #237a, #237b, [0063]), wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly, and the transverse movement assembly is a synchronous belt mechanism (Koike; figs. 7-9, #225, [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first pushing device comprising the transverse movement assembly of modified Nogawa with the pushing device comprising the transverse movement assembly as a synchronous belt mechanism, as taught by Koike, because Koike teach the synchronous belt mechanism allows the pushing member to transverse a strip in a forward or backward direction (Koike; figs. 7-9, [0065]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Nogawa and Koike both teach automatic loading systems that push strips in a passage.
Regarding claim 19, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 4 above, wherein the first pushing device and the second pushing device each comprise a pushing member configured to move up and down to push the extraction strip to move (The modification of the first pushing device 42 and second pushing device 44 configured to move left and right of modified Nogawa with the first pushing device and the second pushing configured to move left and right and to move up and down, as taught by Zou, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above. Zou further teach each pushing device 48/49 comprise a pushing member 9; fig. 8, [0048]), and a transverse movement assembly configured to drive the pushing member to move transversely (Nogawa disclose the pushing member 42 is configured to traverse the first passage and pushing member 44 is configured to traverse the second passage 44; figs. 2-5, [0033, 0035]), wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly (Nogawa disclose the pushing member 42 is configured to traverse the first passage and pushing member 44 is configured to traverse the second passage 44; figs. 2-5, [0033, 0035]).
Modified Nogawa does not explicitly teach the transverse movement assembly is a synchronous belt mechanism.
However, Koike teach the analogous art of a pushing device (Koike; figs. 4-5, #22, [0062-0063]) comprising a transverse movement assembly configured to drive a pushing member to move transversely (Koike; figs. 7-9, #22a, #237a, #237b, [0063]), wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly, and the transverse movement assembly is a synchronous belt mechanism (Koike; figs. 7-9, #225, [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the first pushing device comprising the transverse movement assembly of modified Nogawa with the pushing device comprising the transverse movement assembly as a synchronous belt mechanism, as taught by Koike, because Koike teach the synchronous belt mechanism allows the pushing member to transverse a strip in a forward or backward direction (Koike; figs. 7-9, [0065]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected this modification could have been performed with a reasonable expectation of success since modified Nogawa and Koike both teach automatic loading systems that push strips in a passage.
Claims 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nogawa in view of Gwynn, Zou, and Koike, and further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 9, modified Nogawa teach the automatic loading system for the extraction strip according to claim 8 above comprising the second lifting device (The modification of the first pushing device and second pushing device configured to move left and right of modified Nogawa with the first and second pushing with vertically arranged left and right pushers and configured to move up and down to pass the extraction strip, as taught by Zou, has previously been discussed in claim 1 above).
Modified Nogawa does not teach the second lifting device is a rack-and-pinion mechanism.
However, Wang teach the analogous art of an automatic loading system (Wang; figs. 1 & 4, #10, [46]) comprising a lifting device configured as a rack-and-pinion mechanism (Wang; figs. 1 & 5-6, #213/217, [50, 60-61]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the second lifting device of modified Nogawa to comprise a rack-and-pinion mechanism, as taught by Wang, because Wang teach the lifting device configured as a rack-and-pinion mechanism is merely one of several alternative ways to raise or lower an article in order to allow the article to be elevated to a different height (Wang; figs. 1-2 & 7, [54, 60-61]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/06/2026, have been fully considered.
Applicants argue, see pages 7-10 of their remarks that Zou fails to teach “the first pushing device and the second pushing device each comprise a pushing member configured to move up and down to push the extraction strip to move, and a transverse movement assembly configured to drive the pushing member to move transversely, wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly”. Applicant argues the function of the vertical movement the first pushing device and the second pushing device is for passing the avoidance hole, thereby implement online adding of extraction strips, avoiding collision, returning to the initial position without interrupting the pushing process, and re-engaging to push new strips whereas in Zou, the vertical movement of push plate 9 is used for avoiding the sample holder and returning to reset after pushing the sample holder, so as to prevent collision and jamming. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Zou disclosed the claimed limitation of the first pushing device and second pushing device each comprising a pushing member configured to move up and down to push the extraction strip to move, and a transverse movement assembly configured to drive the pushing member to move transversely, wherein the pushing member is slidably arranged on the transverse movement assembly (Zou; figs. 7-10, [0048-0055]). The examiner notes that what the up and down movement is used for relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure can perform the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. In this case, modified Nogawa teaches the avoidance hole and up and down movement of the pushing member which would be capable of performing the claimed function.
Applicants argue on page 9 of their remarks that Koike fails to disclose a second lifting device configured to drive the left pusher and the right pusher to synchronously move up or down. Although the examiner does not agree with applicant’s argument, the argument is moot in view of the amended claims because Koike is no longer cited for teaching the argued limitations. The prior art rejection has been modified to address the amended claims, and Zou is now cited for teaching the second lifting device configured to drive the left and right pusher to synchronously move up or down. See figure 10 and paragraphs [0052-0055] of Zou where plate 9 moves up and down along rail 33. Accordingly, the left and right pusher move synchronously.
Applicants argue on pages 9-10 of their remarks that Gwynn does not disclose any avoidance hole defined in the extraction strip for the left and pusher and the right pusher to pass. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Gwynn disclose a keying feature 224 as a notch in the extraction strip. What the notch is used for relates to function/intended use. However, functional language does not add any further structure to an apparatus beyond that of capability. Apparatus claims must distinguish over the prior art in terms of structure rather than function (see MPEP 2114). Therefore, if the prior art structure can perform the function, then the prior art meets the limitation in the claims. In this case, modified Nogawa teaches the avoidance hole and up and down movement of the pushing member which would be capable of performing the claimed function.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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