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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2-7 and 11-13 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 LED element with shorter wavelength” in lines 3-4 and “the LED with longer wavelength” in line 5. There is insufficient basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the LED element in the second stand-by mode” in lines 7-8 and “the LED element in the first stand-by mode” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the LED element in the initialize mode” in line 6 and “the LED element in the stand-by mode” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the LED element in the initialize mode” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recite “the LED element” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the LED element” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the LED element with shorter wavelength” in line 10 and “the LED element with longer wavelength” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims.
Claim 4 depends from claim 3 and is therefore indefinite based on its dependency.
Claim 13 depends from claim 12 and is therefore indefinite based on its dependency.
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.
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0285129 to Jackson, III et al. (cited by applicant)
Jackson. III et al. discloses an LED excitation source and module useful for full plate imaging fluorescence instruments [0004] that may be used in any suitable application, including analysis [0135] such as determining the concentration of analytes in a sample [0006], indicating an analyzer.
The excitation source of Jackson, III et al. includes a plurality of LEDs that may emit light of different colors indicating different wavelengths. [0047].
Circuitry that powers the LEDs allows for each individual LED to be turned off or on independently of the others; and each individual LED to be adjusted for power level independently of others, indicating a current adjustment section for adjusting the quantity of current supplied to each LED. [0060]-[0061]
Jackson, III et al.’s teaching of individual turning off the LEDs is interpreted as going into a “non-analytical state” as opposed to an “on” analytical state so that Jackson, III et al. teaches reducing the quantity of current to each of the LED elements in a non-analytical state individually to be smaller than the quantity of current in an analytical state as recited in claim 1.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Jackson, III et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. anticipates claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
2 Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jackson, III et al.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Jackson, III et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the current adjustment section makes a reduction ratio of the quantity of current to the LED element with shorter wavelength larger than a reduction ratio of the quantity of current to the LED element with longer wavelength.
As noted above, Jackson. III et al. teaches a plurality of LEDs that may emit light of different colors indicating different wavelengths. [0047] and further teaches that each individual LED can be turned off or on independently of the others and that each individual LED can be adjusted for power level independently of others. [0060]-[0061]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to turn off or adjust the power level to an individual LED that emits a color having a shorter wavelength for purposes of selectively effecting target sample absorbance, thereby causing a reduction ratio of the quantity of current to the LED element with shorter wavelength larger than a reduction ratio of the quantity of current to another LED element that emits a color having a longer wavelength.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Jackson, III et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 11 depends.
Claim 11 recites a control section for estimating timing of exchanging the light source in consideration of a period for which the current quantity corresponding to a value reduced to be smaller than the value in the analytical state is supplied to the LED element, and a reduction ratio of the current quantity; and a display section for displaying the timing of exchanging the light source, which has been estimated by the control section.
As noted above, Jackson, III et al. teaches a controlling the power to the LED’s that inherently requires a controller/control section.
Jackson, III et al. does not teach a control section for estimating timing of exchanging the light source in consideration of a period for which the current quantity corresponding to a value reduced to be smaller than the value in the analytical state is supplied to the LED element, and a reduction ratio of the current quantity; and a display section for displaying the timing of exchanging the light source, which has been estimated by the control section.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Jackson, III et al. to predict the period of time when an LED needs to be replaced based upon the duration of, and amount of current, supplied to the LED, and provide a display to alert a user of when the LED should be replaced, so as to be able to replace an LED when the emitted light diminishes over the lifetime of the LED.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. renders claim 11 obvious.
3. Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson, III et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2007127583 to Hasegawa. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Jackson, III et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that modes of the non-analytical state include a first stand-by mode, and a second stand-by mode which is shiftable to the analytical state in a shorter period than a period taken in the first stand-by mode; and the current adjustment section makes a reduction ratio of the quantity of current to the LED element in the second stand-by mode smaller than a reduction ratio of the quantity of current to the LED element in the first stand-by mode.
While Jackson, III et al. teaches that that each individual LED can be adjusted for power level independently of others, Jackson, III et al. does not teach modes of the non-analytical state include a first stand-by mode, and a second stand-by mode which is shiftable to the analytical state in a shorter period than a period taken in the first stand-by mode; and the current adjustment section makes a reduction ratio of the quantity of current to the LED element in the second stand-by mode smaller than a reduction ratio of the quantity of current to the LED element in the first stand-by mode.
Hasegawa teaches an automatic analyzer that includes first and second standby modes that are provided to increase the activity lifetime of a light source by lowering the current to the light source during the standby modes. (English translation, page 2, last full paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to modify Jackson, III et al. to include first stand-by mode prior to analysis is made in which a lower current is supplied to an LED element and second stand-by mode during analysis in which analysis is performed as taught by Hasegawa for purposes of rapidly controlling the LED off/on state as taught by Jackson, III et al. at [0071]
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa renders claim 3 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa renders claim 3 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites a cleaning mechanism for cleaning the reaction vessel; a reaction disc for moving the reaction vessel to a predetermined position while holding the reaction vessel; and a dispensing mechanism for dispensing a sample or a reagent, wherein: in the first stand-by mode, the dispensing mechanism, the cleaning mechanism, and the reaction disc are all stopped; and in the second stand-by mode, the dispensing mechanism is stopped while the cleaning mechanism and the reaction disc are not stopped.
Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa does not teach a cleaning mechanism for cleaning the reaction vessel; a reaction disc for moving the reaction vessel to a predetermined position while holding the reaction vessel; and a dispensing mechanism for dispensing sample or a reagent, wherein: in the first stand-by mode, the dispensing mechanism, the cleaning mechanism, and the reaction disc are all stopped; and in the second stand-by mode, the dispensing mechanism is stopped while the cleaning mechanism and the reaction disc are not stopped.
Hasegawa teaches a cleaning mechanism 12, reaction disc 5 and a dispensing mechanism 9 and 10. [0028], [0034] (Fig. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa to include the cleaning mechanism, reaction disc and dispensing mechanism of Hasegawa for purposes of automatically preparing and analyzing sample by the absorbance spectroscopy taught by Jackson, III et al.
It would further have been obvious to operate the cleaning mechanism, reaction disc and dispensing mechanism in any convenient manner, including stopping the dispensing mechanism, the cleaning mechanism, and the reaction disc during the first stand-by mode to conserve power and stopping the dispensing mechanism in the second stand-by mode while the cleaning mechanism and the reaction disc are not stopped and spectroscopy of the samples on the reaction disc is conducted.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa renders claim 4 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Jackson, III et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
Claim 5 recites that the automatic analyzer is turned ON to be in an initialize mode, and brought into the analytical state via a stand-by mode; and the current adjustment section makes the quantity of current to the LED element in the initialize mode larger than the quantity of current to the LED element in the stand-by mode.
Claim 5 is directed to the automatic analyzer of claim 1 is operated and does not include any structural limitations that further limit claim 1.
Therefore, claim 5 is anticipated via its dependency on claim 1.
Notwithstanding, it would have been obvious to turn on the analyzer of Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa to reach a stand-by mode and thereafter increase the current to the LEDs and other system components as needed for their function.
IV. Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa renders claim 5 obvious from which claim 6 depends.
Claim 6 recites that the current adjustment section sets the quantity of current to the LED element in the initialize mode as the quantity of current in the analytical state.
Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa does not teach that the current adjustment section sets the quantity of current to the LED element in the initialize mode as the quantity of current in the analytical state.
In Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to power up the LED fully initially with a larger quantity of current than in a stand-by mode for purposes of beginning analysis quickly.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa renders claim 6 obvious.
V. Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa renders claim 5 obvious from which claim 7 depends.
Claim 7 recites that the current adjustment section temporarily makes the quantity of current to the LED element larger than the quantity of current in the analytical state in a transitional stage from the stand-by mode to the analytical state.
Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa does not teach that the current adjustment section temporarily makes the quantity of current to the LED element larger than the quantity of current in the analytical state in a transitional stage from the stand-by mode to the analytical state.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to initially provide a larger current to the LEDs to quickly initialize from a standby mode and then and adjust the current lower as necessary to conduct analysis for purposes of beginning analysis quickly.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa renders claim 7 obvious.
4. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson, III et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JPH11145542 to Furuyama et al. (cited by applicant)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Jackson, III et al. anticipates claim 1 from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites a current detection section for detecting a current value of the light source; an absorbance calculation section for calculating absorbance based on light which has transmitted the reaction vessel; and a control section for monitoring abnormality in stabilization of light quantity using the current value detected by the current detection section and the absorbance calculated by the absorbance calculation section.
Jackson, III et al. does not teach a current detection section for detecting a current value of the light source; an absorbance calculation section for calculating absorbance based on light which has transmitted the reaction vessel; and a control section for monitoring abnormality in stabilization of light quantity using the current value detected by the current detection section and the absorbance calculated by the absorbance calculation section.
Furuyama et al. teaches monitoring the intensity of light output from a light source for purposes of detecting abnormalities. (English translation, page 5, second full paragraph from bottom)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Jackson, III et al. to detect current provided to LEDs and the light output by the LEDs as taught by Furuyama et al. for purposes of determining an abnormality in the light output that does not correspond correctly to the current supplied to the LEDs so that the absorbance measurement and properly assessed.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. in view of Furuyama et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Furuyama et al. renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 9 depends.
Claim 9 recites that if the current value detected by the current detection section is not within a prescribed range of a set value of the current adjustment section even after an elapse of a prescribed period from supply of the current quantity in the analytical state, or if a difference from a previous value of the absorbance calculated by the absorbance calculation section is not within a prescribed range, the control section outputs an alarm indicating abnormality in stabilization of the light quantity.
Furuyama et al. teaches an alarm that is made when the light intensity is in a certain range. (English translation, page 6, second full paragraph)
Jackson, III et al. in view of Furuyama et al. does not teach that if the current value detected by the current detection section is not within a prescribed range of a set value of the current adjustment section even after an elapse of a prescribed period from supply of the current quantity in the analytical state, or if a difference from a previous value of the absorbance calculated by the absorbance calculation section is not within a prescribed range, the control section outputs an alarm indicating abnormality in stabilization of the light quantity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Jackson, III et al. in view of Furuyama et al. so that if the current value detected by the current detection section is not within a prescribed range of a set value of the current adjustment section even after an elapse of a prescribed period from supply of the current quantity in the analytical state, or if a difference from a previous value of the absorbance calculated by the absorbance calculation section is not within a prescribed range, the control section outputs an alarm indicating abnormality in stabilization of the light quantity, as a matter of providing a normal alert of an abnormality or failure of the system.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. in view of Furuyama et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Furuyama et al. renders claim 8 obvious from which claim 10 depends.
Claim 10 recites that if a standard deviation of the absorbance calculated by the absorbance calculation section is not within a prescribed range even after an elapse of a prescribed period from supply of the current quantity in the analytical state, the control section outputs an alarm indicating abnormality in stabilization of the light quantity.
As noted above, Furuyama et al. teaches an alarm that is made when the light intensity is in a certain range. (English translation, page 6, second full paragraph)
Jackson, III et al. in view of Furuyama et al. does not teach that if a standard deviation of the absorbance calculated by the absorbance calculation section is not within a prescribed range even after an elapse of a prescribed period from supply of the current quantity in the analytical state, the control section outputs an alarm indicating abnormality in stabilization of the light quantity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Jackson, III et al. in view of Furuyama et al. so that if a standard deviation of the absorbance calculated by the absorbance calculation section is not within a prescribed range even after an elapse of a prescribed period from supply of the current quantity in the analytical state, the control section outputs an alarm indicating abnormality in stabilization of the light quantity as a matter of providing a normal alert of an abnormality or failure of the system.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. in view of Furuyama et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
5. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson, III et al.
As noted above, Jackson. III et al. discloses an LED excitation source and module useful for full plate imaging fluorescence instruments [0004] that may be used in any suitable application, including analysis [0135] such as determining the concentration of analytes in a sample [0006], indicating an analyzer.
The excitation source of Jackson, III et al. includes a plurality of LEDs that may emit light of different colors indicating different wavelengths. [0047].
Circuitry that powers the LEDs allows for each individual LED to be turned off or on independently of the others; and each individual LED to be adjusted for power level independently of others, indicating a current adjustment section for adjusting the quantity of current supplied to each LED.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Jackson, III et al. to supply current to the LEDs in pulses that turn individual LEDs off and on as taught by Jackson, III et al. and prolong the OFF-duration of an LED that emits a color having a shorter wavelength than an LED that emits a color having a longer wavelength of purposes of selectively effecting target sample absorbance.
I.) As noted above, Jackson, III et al. teaches or renders obvious all the elements of claim 12,
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. renders claim 12 obvious.
6. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Jackson, III et al. as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Hasegawa.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 13, as noted above Jackson, III et al. renders claim 12 obvious from which claim 13 depends.
Claim 13 recites modes of the non-analytical state include a first stand-by mode, and a second stand-by mode which is shiftable to an analytical state in a shorter period than a period taken in the first stand-by mode; and the current adjustment section makes a pulse OFF-duration in the second stand-by mode shorter than a pulse OFF-duration in the first stand-by mode.
While Jackson, III et al. teaches that that each individual LED can be adjusted for power level independently of others, Jackson, III et al. does not teach modes of the non-analytical state include a first stand-by mode, and a second stand-by mode which is shiftable to an analytical state in a shorter period than a period taken in the first stand-by mode; and the current adjustment section makes a pulse OFF-duration in the second stand-by mode shorter than a pulse OFF-duration in the first stand-by mode.
As noted above, Hasegawa teaches an automatic analyzer that includes first and second standby modes that are provided to increase the activity lifetime of a light source by lowering the current to the light source during the standby modes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to modify Jackson, III et al. to pulse currents to the LEDs in a first stand-by mode prior to when analysis is made and second stand-by mode during analysis in which analysis is performed as taught by Hasegawa and providing a shorter OFF-duration of the current pulse that is shorter in the second stand-by mode for purposes of rapidly controlling the LED off/on state as taught by Jackson, III et al. at [0071]
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa renders claim 13 obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 1798