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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed 05/27/2026. Claims 1 and 5-11 are pending. Claim 2 has been canceled. Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, without “configured to” language between the current adjustment section and the claimed operation, the limitation “makes a first reduction ratio of the quantity of current supplied to the first LED element in the second stand-by mode smaller than a second reduction ratio of the quantity of current supplied to the second LED element in the second stand-by mode,” has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the current adjustment section.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111). The current claim limitation does not require the current adjustment section of the controller to actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. The prior art controller need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
1. Claims 1, 5-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0285129 to Jackson, III et al. in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2007127583 to Hasegawa. (cited by applicant), and Wikipedia “Standby Power” (https://web.archive.org/web/20210216222806/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standby_power 02/16/20210)
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].
Thus, Jackson, III et al. teaches a plurality of LED elements including a first LED element having a first wavelength and a second LED element having a second wavelength shorter than the first wavelength.
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]
As mentioned above, Jackson, III et al. teaches adjusting the power or current to the LEDs individually.
Jackson, III et al. does not teach reducing the current supplied to the first and second LEDs or modes of a non-analytical state that 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, the current adjustment section makes a first reduction ratio of the quantity of current supplied to the first
However, 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). Standby modes are interpreted as being non-analytical states since the LEDs are not fully powered to produce sufficient illumination at their individual wavelengths.
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 a first stand-by mode prior to performing analysis in which a lower current is supplied to an LED element and a 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]
Wikipedia “Standby Power” teaches that LEDs can be provided with standby power and that standby power enables devices (such as LEDs) to be switched on quickly (“Advantages” and “Identifying devices”).
As mentioned above, Jackson III teaches circuitry corresponding to a current adjustment section [0060]-[0061]. Thus, Jackson meets the limitation of the claim makes a first reduction ratio of the quantity of current supplied to the first LED element in the second stand-by mode smaller than a second reduction ratio of the quantity of current supplied to the second LED element in the second stand-by mode” since the circuitry of Jackson is fully capable of adjusting different current reduction ratios of the first and second LEDs in the second standby mode so a first reduction ratio of the quantity of current supplied to the first LED element in the second stand-by mode smaller than a second reduction ratio of the quantity of current supplied to the second LED element in the second stand-by mode. One of ordinary skill in the art would be expected to use different current reduction ratios according to how quickly it is desired for each LED to reach a steady-state from its standby-state quickly and provide emitted light.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” renders all the elements of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” renders claim 1 obvious 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, Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” renders claim 5 obvious 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.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 6, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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 and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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 and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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 and Wikipedia “Standby Power” renders claim 6 obvious.
IV.) Regarding applicant’s claim 7, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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 and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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 and Wikipedia “Standby Power” renders claim 7 obvious.
V.) Regarding applicant’s claim 11, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” renders claim 1 obvious 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. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power”
renders claim 11 obvious.
2. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” renders claim 1 obvious 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. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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. in view of Hasegawa and Wikipedia “Standby Power” 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 Hasegawa, Wikipedia “Standby Power” and Furuyama et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 9, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa, Wikipedia “Standby Power” and 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 Hasegawa, Wikipedia “Standby Power” and 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 Hasegawa, Wikipedia “Standby Power” and 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 Hasegawa, Wikipedia “Standby Power” and Furuyama et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 10, as noted above Jackson, III et al. in view of Hasegawa, Wikipedia “Standby Power” and 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 Hasegawa, Wikipedia “Standby Power” and 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 Hasegawa, Wikipedia “Standby Power” and 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 Hasegawa, Wikipedia “Standby Power” and Furuyama et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of applicant’s response applicant argues that:
“…with respect to the example shown in Fig. 4 when transitioning to the second stand-by mode (rack reception mode) at time T1, the reduction ratio for the current supplied to LED element A is smaller than the reduction ratio of the current supplied to LED element B which has the shorter wavelength, and these currents are non-zero during the second stand-by mode..”
As noted above, Wikipedia “Standby Power” teaches that LEDs can be provided with standby power and that standby power enables devices (such as LEDs) to be switched on quickly (“Advantages” and “Identifying devices”)
It would have accordingly been obvious to adjust different current reduction ratios of the first and second LEDs in the second standby mode so a first reduction ratio of the quantity of current supplied to the first LED element in the second stand-by mode smaller than a second reduction ratio of the quantity of current supplied to the second LED element in the second stand-by mode, for purposes of adjusting the how quickly one desires to have each LED reach a steady state from its standby state to provide desired emitted light.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dikel et al. (“Evaluating the standby power consumption of smart LED bulbs,” Energy & Buildings 186 (2019) 71–79) teaches that LEDs constantly consume power in standby modes after emitting light.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights