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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “the plurality of support poles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation as it is unclear if the support poles are referring to the post groups.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites “when a number of the consumable items injected into the automatic analyzer is below a number preset by an operator, the robot automatically fetches the consumable item…” is a product and process in the same claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In this specific case, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system that allows the user to input a preset, or whether infringement occurs when the operator actually uses the system.
Claims 2-13 are also rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The problem of the invention is when adjusting height of the robot arm for the input ports of analyzers, the center of the gravity of the robot arm is unintentionally changed, which can potentially result unwanted consequence like robot arm falling over. The inventive concept to address the solution involves adjusting the height of the analyzer instead using a jack/lift unit with the jack installed beneath a raised floor.
The closest art, Xu (CN 212131868 U) discloses an automatic analyzer (analyzer 14, Fig. 1) comprising a jack (positioning base 13, Fig. 1) is installed below the automatic analyzer, wherein the jack includes a lift unit (positioning plate 6, moving device 7, connecting tooth 8, transmission tooth 10, and rotating rod 11, Fig. 1) that gives a force to push back the automatic analyzer above in a vertical direction (height adjustment process, Utility model content, para. 3-5).
The second closest art, Ping (US 2009047179 A1) cited an automatic analyzer (2000A, Fig. 1) installed on top plates (base 2012, top, front side, back, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020; para. [0129]), the automatic analyzer having a liquid injection port;
a robot (robotic arm 700) that moves on a rail (rail 26 of track 704) that delivers consumable item to the automatic analyzer (para. [0119]). It doesn't seem to have at least a plurality of support poles between the floor and top plates.
Pantev (US 20050028463 A1) discloses a raised flooring system (Fig. 1) in the building of plants or premises involved machinery and equipment comprising:
a plurality of posts/poles (vertical supports, Fig. 3) installed on the floor and a plurality of top plates (module 2, Fig. 1-2).
Even when combined, the combination does not disclose a jack that is installed below the automatic analyzer and between the floor and the top plate, and
the rail is fixed, in the jack, to an upper part of a site projecting in an outer direction of the automatic analyzer.
At best, the combination would have disclosed an automatic analyzer of Xu placed on top of a raised flooring system of Pantev with rail and robot arm as taught by Ping. The combination still remains silent on having the jack installed between the floor and the top plate, and the rail is fixed, in the jack, to an upper part of a site projecting in an outer direction of the automatic analyzer. Even though the height adjustment can still achieve by using the positioning base/jack below the analyzer of Xu, whereas the jack in the current claimed is placed underneath the top plates and in between the top plates and the floor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li (CN 114931985 A), discloses an automatic analysis system (Splicable automatic laboratory, Fig. 2-4) comprising:
a plurality of poles (poles/pillars of frame 12, Fig. 2-4) that is installed on a floor;
in the plurality of support poles, a plurality of top plates (the top plates of frame 12, Fig. 2-4) installed on a first support pole group; an automatic analyzer (experimental equipment 7, Fig. 4) on the top plates (The experimental equipment 7 can be placed on…the upper part of the equipment platform, Example 1, para. 12); in the plurality of support poles, a rail (transmission track 13, Fig. 2-4) that is installed on a second support pole group;
PNG
media_image1.png
633
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a robot (robot arm 14, Fig. 2) that moves on the rail and that delivers a consumable item to the automatic analyzer.
Lange (EP 4711553 A1) discloses a similar raised floor system with a rail and robot arm installed on the top plates. The application is filed and published after the publication date of the current application.
PNG
media_image2.png
831
1031
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
779
814
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICKEY HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7690. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 PM ET.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at 5712707698. 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.
/M.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights