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 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 2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the revolution tracks" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 13-15, they are dependent on claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yanami et al. (US 2018/0038882 A1) (hereinafter Yanami).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Yanami teaches a sample analyzer comprising a liquid suction device (see Abstract) for sucking liquid in a containing box with a plurality of containing cavities [sample probes 15, 16 capable of sucking liquid; sample is to be sucked by the sample probe; rack 11 with sample container cavities 61] (Para [0035], see Figs. 2-3) wherein the liquid suction device comprises:
a supporting piece [one or more rails as a moving mechanism] (Para [0049], see Fig. 5); and
a plurality of liquid suction mechanisms [sample probes 15, 16], each of the plurality of liquid suction mechanisms comprising a rotating unit [dispensing arm to rotate or translate as desired], the rotating unit is slidably connected with the supporting piece [dispensing arm on the moving mechanism] (Para [0049]) and comprises a rotating shaft, a central axis of the rotating shaft extends along a gravity direction [rotation axis in relation to gravity; Fig. 2 shows example of rotating dispensing arm for probes 15/16] (see Claim 1, Figs. 2 and 4-5), the liquid suction mechanism can revolve around the rotating shaft [dispensing arm including the sample probe to be rotated; dispensing arm capable of being rotated or translated as desired] (Para [0049], see Claim 1, Figs. 2 and 4-5), and liquid in different containing cavities in the containing box can be sucked by the plurality of liquid suction mechanisms at the same time [probes 15 and 16 capable of performing dispensing operations independently to suck a sample from one of a plurality of sample suction positions; does not preclude the possibility of simultaneous liquid suction, thus capable of sucking at same time] (see Abstract).
As best understood regarding claim 2, Yagami as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein each of the plurality of the liquid suction mechanisms further comprises a liquid suction unit, the liquid suction unit comprises a liquid suction body, the liquid suction body can revolve around the rotating shaft, and all the containing cavities in a same containing box can be covered with addition of revolution tracks of different suction bodies of the plurality of liquid suction mechanisms around the rotating shaft [dispensing arm controlled to rotate or translate as desired; each sample container in rack 11 capable of coverage by a sample suction position of a probe 15 and/or 16] (Para [0048-0049], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Yagami as applied to claim 2 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein a central axis of the liquid suction body and the central axis of the rotating shaft are parallel to each other, with a certain distance between the central axis of the liquid suction body and the central axis of the rotating shaft [dispensing arm to rotate or translate as desired; Fig. 2 shows example of rotating dispensing arm for probes 15/16 with central axis of suction body and rotating shaft parallel to each other with a distance between] (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Yagami as applied to claim 13 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the liquid suction unit further comprises a supporting arm, the supporting arm is connected with the rotating shaft, and the liquid suction body is connected with the supporting arm in a sliding mode [sample probes 15, 16 include mechanisms capable of changing the probe heights] (Para [0034], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, Yagami as applied to claim 14 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein the liquid suction unit further comprises a power assembly, which is connected with the supporting arm and drives the liquid suction body to slide [drive source] (Para [0036]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ely et al. (US 5,717,148) (hereinafter Ely).
Regarding claim 3, Yagami as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein two liquid suction mechanisms are provided [15, 16], the liquid suction body on one liquid suction mechanism is marked as a first liquid suction probe [first sample probe], the liquid suction body on the other liquid suction mechanism is marked as a second liquid suction body [second sample probe] (see Claim 1). Yagami fails to teach wherein a track formed by rotation of the first liquid suction body is a first circle, a track formed by rotation of the second liquid suction body is a second circle, areas where the first circle and the second circle are located can cover partially connected containing cavities in a same containing box respectively so that two liquid suction bodies of the two liquid suction mechanisms can suck liquid in the different containing cavities in the same containing box. Ely teaches an automated analyzer comprising two liquid suction bodies [40 ,50] which rotate in a first and second circle to cover partially connected containing cavities in a same containing box [24] so that two liquid suction mechanisms can suck liquid in the different containing cavities in the same containing box (see Abstract, Fig.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Yagami with Ely such that a track formed by rotation of the first liquid suction body is a first circle, a track formed by rotation of the second liquid suction body is a second circle, areas where the first circle and the second circle are located can cover partially connected containing cavities in a same containing box respectively so that two liquid suction bodies of the two liquid suction mechanisms can suck liquid in the different containing cavities in the same containing box, in order to efficiently extract liquids from a containing box using two probes.
Regarding claim 4, Yagami in view of Ely as applied to claim 3 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the first circle and the second circle intersect or are tangent under a condition that a connecting line between a center of the first circle and a center of the second circle is perpendicular to the gravity direction. Ely additionally teaches wherein the first circle [42] and the second circle [52] intersect or are tangent under a condition that a connecting line between a center of the first circle and a center of the second circle is perpendicular to the gravity direction (see Ely Fig.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Yagami in view of Ely such that wherein the first circle and the second circle intersect or are tangent under a condition that a connecting line between a center of the first circle and a center of the second circle is perpendicular to the gravity direction, in order to efficiently extract liquids from a containing box using two probes.
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Yagami in view of Ely as applied to claim 4 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein the first circle and the second circle intersect, an arc section, located in the second circle, of the first circle is marked a s a first arc section, an arc section, located in the first circle, of the second circle is marked as a second arc section, and central angles corresponding to the first and second arc sections are smaller than 180 degrees. Ely additionally teaches first and second arc sections having central angles smaller than 180 degrees (see Ely Fig.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Yagami in view of Ely such the first circle and the second circle intersect, an arc section, located in the second circle, of the first circle is marked a s a first arc section, an arc section, located in the first circle, of the second circle is marked as a second arc section, and central angles corresponding to the first and second arc sections are smaller than 180 degrees, in order to efficiently extract liquids from a containing box using two probes.
Regarding claims 6-7, Yagami in view of Ely as applied to claim 4 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein when the first circle and the second circle intersect, one containing cavity is located in a coverage area of the first and second circles in the same containing box such that the first liquid suction body performs liquid suction work in the one containing cavity, and the second liquid suction body is responsible for liquid suction work of other containing cavities in the second circle. Ely additionally teaches wherein the first and second movement circles of the two probes intersect, certain wells in carrier 24 are covered by both circles, while other wells are covered only by one of the first and second circles. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Yagami in view of Ely such that one containing cavity is located in a coverage area of the first and second circles in the same containing box such that the first liquid suction body performs liquid suction work in the one containing cavity while the second liquid suction body is responsible for the remaining cavities, in order to prevent the two suction bodies from bumping into each other during operation.
Regarding claim 9, Yagami as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, except for wherein a boundary formed by movement tracks of the plurality of liquid suction mechanisms is a closed loop double waist shaped curve. Ely teaches an automated analyzer comprising two liquid suction mechanisms [40, 50] that have movement tracks that form a boundary that is a closed-loop double-waist-shaped curve (see Abstract, Fig.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Yagami with Ely such that a boundary formed by movement tracks of the plurality of liquid suction mechanisms is a closed loop double waist shaped curve, in order to efficiently extract liquids from a containing box using two probes.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagami as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2016/0266162 A1) (hereinafter Liu).
Regarding claims 11-12, Yagami as applied to claim 1 above teaches the claimed invention, in addition to wherein two liquid suction mechanisms are provided [15, 16], the two liquid suction mechanisms can slide along two straight lines which extend in a direction perpendicular to the gravity direction and are parallel to each other relative to the supporting piece, the supporting piece comprises guide rails, a number of the guide rails is consistent with a number of the liquid suction mechanisms, the two liquid suction mechanisms slide linearly on corresponding guide rails respectively [one or more rails as a moving mechanism] (see Figs. 5, 7, 8).
Yagami fails to teach the two guide rails are located on a same supporting piece, wherein the supporting piece is of a plate-shaped structure, and the two liquid suction mechanisms are located on a same side, in the thickness direction, of the supporting piece. Liu teaches an automatic pipetting instrument having a supporting piece of a plate shaped structure having guide rails which support a plurality of liquid suction mechanisms that are located on a same side, in the thickness direction, of the supporting piece (see Abstract, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Yagami with Liu such that the two guide rails are located on a same supporting piece, wherein the supporting piece is of a plate-shaped structure, and the two liquid suction mechanisms are located on a same side, in the thickness direction, of the supporting piece, in order to allow for more than two independent dispensing operations in multiple locations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 8, the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of limitations regarding seven containing cavities formed in the same containing box containing liquid of different compositions, wherein the fifth cavity is located in a common coverage area of the first and second circles, in combination with the rest of the limitations found in claims 1, 3-4, and 6-7, from which the claim depends upon.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID Z HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Kristina Deherrera can be reached on 303-297-4237. 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.
/DAVID Z HUANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855