2Notice 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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-036067, filed on 03/08/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. The instant invention is anticipated by Sakazume et al. (US5985215A):
Regarding Claim 1, Sakazume et al. teaches an automatic analyzer (See the Abstract, the analyzing apparatus 100, and Claim(s) 1-11 in [Col. 2 line 47-67]-[Col. 5 lines 1-64] in Fig. 1-4), comprising: a conveyance line for conveying a loaded sample container (See the transfer line, i.e. a conveyance line, in [Col. 2 lines 47-51] in Fig. 1);
an identification information reading device that reads identification information attached to the sample container (See the bar code reader 142 and 144, i.e. identification information reading devices, in [Col. 3 lines 9-21] in Fig. 1); and
a container height detection device that detects a height of the sample container (See the container type discrimination part 146, i.e. a container height detection device, in [Col. 3 lines 9-21] in Fig. 1 and 4),
wherein the identification information reading device and the container height detection device perform reading and detection when the sample container is at a common position on the conveyance line (See in [Col. 5 lines 57-63] in Fig. 1 and 4),
the container height detection device includes a plurality of sensors having different height ranges for a detection target (See in [Col. 5 lines 38-51] in Fig. 1 and 4),
a part of the plurality of sensors is disposed on the same side as the identification information reading device with respect to the conveyance line (See how the light emission part 146A is composed of light emitting diodes A1, A2 ,A3 , A4 and A5 arranged in an array state at different height positions perpendicular to the transfer line 130 in [Col. 3 lines 38-51] in Fig. 1 and 4), and
the rest of the plurality of sensors are disposed on the opposite side of the identification information reading device with respect to the conveyance line (See how the light reception part 146B is composed of photo-diodes B1, B2 ,B3 , B4 and B5 also arranged in an array state at different height positions perpendicular to the transfer line 130 in [Col. 3 lines 38-51] in Fig. 1 and 4).
Note in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). The current claimed arrangement of the identification information reading device, the container height detection device, the conveyance line, and the plurality of sensors, would render similar results as the analyzing apparatus in the prior art.
Regarding Claim(s) 2-3, Sakazume et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Sakazume et al. teaches an automatic analyzer (See the Abstract, the analyzing apparatus 100, and Claim(s) 1-11 in [Col. 2 line 47-67]-[Col. 5 lines 1-64] in Fig. 1-4), wherein the sensor whose detection target is a height range in which a distance between the plurality of sample containers mounted on a sample rack along a conveyance direction of the conveyance line is the closest is disposed on the opposite side of the identification information reading device (See in [Col. 5 lines 4-63] in Fig. 1-4);
wherein the sensor whose height range for the detection target is the lowest is disposed on the opposite side of the identification information reading device (See in Fig. 1-4 in Claim(s) 4-11).
Regarding Claim 4, Sakazume et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Sakazume et al. teaches an automatic analyzer (See the Abstract, the analyzing apparatus 100, and Claim(s) 1-11 in [Col. 2 line 47-67]-[Col. 5 lines 1-64] in Fig. 1-4), wherein a light emission direction of the sensor disposed on the opposite side of the identification information reading device is closer to a direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction of the conveyance line than a light emission direction of the sensor disposed on the same side as the identification information reading device (See the container type discrimination part 146, i.e. a container height detection device, is perpendicular to the transfer line in [Col. 3 lines 38-51] in Fig. 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Sakazume et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Sakazume et al. teach an automatic analyzer (See the Abstract, the analyzing apparatus 100, and Claim(s) 1-11 in [Col. 2 line 47-67]-[Col. 5 lines 1-64] in Fig. 1-4), wherein the identification information reading device also reads identification information attached to a sample rack on which the sample container is mounted (See how the discrimination unit 140, i.e. identification information, includes a bar code reader 142 for reading a rack bar code label 24 affixed to each sample rack 20 to show information on the sample rack, a bar code reader 144 for reading a sample container bar code label 18 affixed to each sample container 10 to show information on a sample in the container 10, etc. in [Col. 2 lines 46-67]-[Col. 3 lines 1-21] in Fig. 1-4).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakazume et al. (US5985215A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haung et al. (CN110873809A).
Regarding Claim 6, Sakazume et al. teaches the device limitations of claim 1.
Sakazume et al. fails to explicitly teach an automatic analyzer, wherein a light emission direction of the sensor disposed on the opposite side of the identification information reading device is closer to a direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction of the conveyance line than a light emission direction of the sensor disposed on the same side as the identification information reading device
However, in the analogous art of sample analyzers and methods, Haung et al. teaches an automatic analyzer (See the Abstract, the automatic sampling device, and Claim(s) 1-12 in Fig. 1-3), wherein a light emission direction of the sensor disposed on the opposite side of the identification information reading device is closer to a direction perpendicular to the conveyance direction of the conveyance line than a light emission direction of the sensor disposed on the same side as the identification information reading device (See how the sensor bracket 114 is disposed on the detection platform 113 in Fig. 1; Also, see how the automatic sampling device includes at least one rack 10, a sampling base 11, a rack driving mechanism, a length detection sensor 12, a barcode scanning unit 13, a sampling mechanism 14, and a processor that can be disposed vertically in Fig. 1).
Thus, it would be obvious to modify the device of Sakazume et al. by incorporating a light emitting unit and a light receiving unit are disposed in a vertical direction (as taught by Haung et al.) for the benefit of identifying samples in an analyzer via a reading device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art teaches similar devices and methods: Yasui et al. (US20160327587A1), Hiroki et al. (US20210247412A1), and Nakajima et al. (US20220011333A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITNEY N WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm CT.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571) 272-1254. 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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797