DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is a final office action in response to a communication filed on March 31, 2026. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10-12, 15, 17-18, 20-23, 25, 28, 35-37, 40-42 and 44 are pending in the application.
Status of Objections and Rejections
All rejections from the previous office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
New grounds of rejection are necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 35-37, 40-42, and 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai (JP 3610111 B2, machine translation for citation) in view of Shu (US 5,833,925), and further in view of Uffenheimer (US 4,984,475).
Regarding claim 35, Imai teaches an ion selective electrode analyzer (Fig. 2; [Summary]: an electrolyte concentration analyzer) comprising:
at least one reagent supply line (Fig. 2, 5; ¶2: dilution liquid injection nozzle 5), the at least one reagent supply line further comprising at least one reagent (¶2: sample liquid injected into the sample pot 1);
a dilution pot for receiving the reagent (Fig. 2, 5: sample pot 1);
a flow cell (¶2: flow type measurement cell 7) downstream from the dilution pot (Fig. 2, 5);
a flow cell line (¶2: a sample solution introduction pipe 6) operatively connected with the flow cell (Fig. 2, 5);
a bypass line (¶25: bypass pipe 12) operated connected with the dilution pot (Fig. 2: pipe 12; Fig. 5: pipe 10);
a drain line (Fig. 5; ¶39: suction line 8),
at least a second pump (Fig. 5: pump 9),
a first valve (Fig. 5; ¶40: a first switching valve 17), wherein the first valve is a three-way valve (Fig. 5: a three-way valve 17),
a second valve (Fig. 5; ¶40: a second switching valve 18), wherein the second valve is a three-way valve (Fig. 5: a three-way valve 18).
Imai does not disclose a first pump.
However, Shu teaches a reaction cup module (Fig. 6; col. 5, l. 47), in which reagent is pumped from a source of reagent 380 by the reagent pump 59 (Fig. 6; col. 5, ll. 50-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imao by incorporating a first pump for pumping the reagent to the reagent container via the reagent supply line as taught by Shu because a pump would provide the force to introducing the reagent. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Imai does not disclose a flushing liquid line, or a third pump or a third valve, wherein the third valve is a two-way valve.
However, Uffenheimer teaches an automated sample liquids analysis system (col. 3, ll. 27-28), including a rinse liquid supply pump and pump drive means (Fig. 1: 64; col. 5, ll. 56-58). The rinse liquid can be driven by a pressurized air and vacuum supply conduits 66 and 68 (Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 58-59). For operation of the rinse liquid supply means 18 to supply rinse liquid 62 from container 60, a two-way valve 84 is rotated to the “open” position for connecting conduits 90 and 94 (Fig. 1; col. 6, ll. 22-27). Thus, Uffenheimer teaches an electric drive motor means 75, a three-way valve 72 (Fig. 1), a flushing liquid line (Fig. 1: conduits 90, 94), a third pump (Fig. 1; col. 6, l. 7: electric drive motor means 89), and a third valve (Fig. 1: two-way rinse liquid supply valve 84), which enable a rinse liquid to be supplied at its “open” position (col. 6, ll. 25-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imao by incorporating a flushing liquid line with a third pump and a third two-way valve as taught by Uffenheimer for washing the flow cell because the pump and the two-way valve would enable supplying a rinse liquid to flush the flow cell analyzer and thus reduce sample liquid carryover for the required ultra-low level detection (col. 2; ll. 55-57). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Imai further discloses a tube connecting the second valve with the second pump (Fig. 5: the pipe portion between the valve 18 and the pump 9), wherein the tube has a capacity.
The designation “wherein the tube has a capacity greater than a volume the second pump is configured to aspirate” is deemed to be functional limitation in apparatus claims. MPEP 2114 (II). "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). Here, Imai in view of Shu and Uffenheimer teaches all structural limitations of the presently claimed ion selective electrode analyzer including a tube between the second valve and the second pump (Imai, Fig. 5), which is capable of having a greater capacity than the volume the second pump is configured to aspirate.
Regarding claim 36, the designation “wherein if the first valve is a pinch valve, the ion selective electrode analyzer further comprises a Y-shape connector” is optional, and thus not required in the prior art.
Regarding claims 37 and 42, Imai, Shu, and Uffenheimer disclose all limitations of claim 35. Imai and Uffenheimer fail to teach wherein the ion selective electrode analyzer further comprises a second reagent supply line (claim 37) or wherein the ion selective electrode analyzer further comprises a fourth pump and a second reagent supply line, wherein the fourth pump is connected to the second reagent supply line (claim 42).
However, Shu teaches an ion selective analyzing station 22 (Fig. 14; col. 9, ll. 50-51), including a pump 64 with three pump modules (Fig. 14; col. 9, ll. 66-67): a buffer reagent pump module 65 pumps buffer reagent, a carbon dioxide acid reagent pump module 67 pumps carbon dioxide acid reagent, and a reference reagent pump module 69 pumps internal reference reagent from a source of internal reference reagent 812 (bridging para. between col. 9-10). Both carbon dioxide acid reagent and internal reference reagent are directly to the flow cell analyzer 62 (col. 10, ll. 4-7). Here, Shu teaches a fourth pump (Fig. 14: the carbon dioxide acid reagent pump module 67) connected with a second reagent supply line (Fig. 14: the pipe connecting the carbon dioxide acid reagent pump module 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imao and Uffenheimer by incorporating a fourth pump and a second reagent supply line connected with the fourth pump as taught by Shu because they would provide additional reagent to be measured in the flow cell analyzer (col. 9, ll. 56-60). Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 40, Imai teaches wherein at least the second pump (Fig. 5: pump 9) is connected to the drain line (Fig. 5: suction line 8) via the second valve (Fig. 5: valve 18), wherein the second valve is positioned at or near the middle of the drain line (¶40: valve 18 provided in the middle of the suction pipe 8).
Regarding claims 41, Imai, Shu, and Uffenheimer disclose all limitations of claim 35, including Uffenheimer disclosing a third pump that enables supplying a rinse liquid through a third valve (Fig. 1: valve 84) by connecting conduits 90 and 94 (col. 6, ll. 22-27). Imai, Shu, and Uffenheimer fail to teach wherein the third valve is positioned at or near the middle of the flushing liquid line connecting the second pump and the third pump.
However, Imai teaches a first switching valve 17 provided in the middle of the sample solution introduction pipe 6, and a second switching valve 18 provided in the middle of the suction pipe 8 (Fig. 5; ¶40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imai, Shu, and Uffenheimer by positioning the third valve for supplying the rinse liquid in the middle position of the flushing liquid line as suggested because it is a typical valve position for controlling stream over a conduit in the art. As a result, the combined Imai, Shu, and Uffenheimer would necessarily connect the second pump connected to the waste tank and the third pump for supplying the rinse liquid.
Regarding claim 44, Imai teaches wherein the ion electrode analyzer further comprises a drain (Fig. 2, 5; ¶25: a waste liquid tank 26), wherein the drain line (Fig. 2, 5: pipe 8) is operatively connected to the drain (Fig. 2, 5).
Alternatively, Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imai in view of Shu and Uffenheimer, and further in view of Tu (US 2018/0372717).
Regarding claims 36, Imai, Shu, and Uffenheimer disclose all limitations of claim 35, but fail to teach wherein if the first valve is a pinch valve, the ion selective electrode analyzer further comprises a Y-shape connector.
However, Tu teaches a sample volume control component with multiple tubes (Fig. 9B; ¶126). The control component includes multiple tubes, 31B, 32B, 33B, a y-connector 35B, and a three-way solenoid pinch valve or a pinch valve 12B (Fig. 9B; ¶126).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Imai, Shu, and Uffenheimer by incorporating a Y-shape connector and utilizing a pinch valve as taught by Tu because Y-shape connector would bifurcate a flow from one pipe into two pipes as required in Imai’s device (Imai, Fig. 5) and a pinch valve is a suitable three-way valve with the same function. Here, the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP 2143(I)(A). The combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive in light of new grounds for rejection.
Applicant argues Uffenheimer does not cure the deficiencies of Imai that does not teach an element that can both aspirate and flush the drain line and reduce contamination and dirt/clogging (Response, p. 12, para. 1-2). This argument is unpersuasive because the primary reference, Imai, teaches a second pump 9, a second valve 18, and a suction line 8 (Imai, Fig. 5), and the secondary reference, Uffenheimer, teaches a second pump (Uffenheimer, Fig. 1: 75) and a second three-way valve (Fig. 1: 72) that comprises both a pressurized air and vacuum supply conduits 66 and 68 (Fig. 1; col. 5, ll. 56-61). Examiner notes that claim 35 does not recite the second valve is for both aspirating and flushing the drain line. Further, the newly added tube is connecting the second valve with the second pump, which is taught in Imai (Fig. 5: the pipe portion between the valve 18 and the pump 9). Applicant’s argument that the use of aspiration and rising would potentially contaminate the rinse line 90 (Response, p. 12, para. 2) is unpersuasive because the aspiration by vacuum conduit 68 is aspirating the rinse liquid 62 from container 60, which are in the same side of the third valve (Uffenheimer, Fig. 1: 84).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAITLYN M SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30am - 5:30pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached on 571-272-8521. 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. SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights