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 .
Detailed Action
This is the Final Action for application 18/286403 response filed 06/18/2026.
Claims 1 & 3-12 are rejected.
Claim 2 is cancelled,
This application was examined as part of the Pendency Balance program.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In Claims 1 & 3 the limitations of the below are included:
“a control unit storing a program.., which when executed causes the control unit to control operations of the sample conveying device including….,”
“control unit configured to…,”
These terms are also used throughout Claims 4-12 so these are included in the interpretation.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In the instant PGPub specification, paragraph 0068 it states, “the control unit is a functional unit,” so clearly stating that the control unit is not a structure. Paragraph 0068 further states, “the control unit is implemented by a computer including a display device such as a liquid crystal display, an input device, a storage device, a CPU, a memory and the like.” Even further, paragraph 0068 states, “a part of all of the programs may be implemented by dedicated hardware or modularized.”
So, it is noted that a “control unit,” is not a physical structure, or apparatus or device part as is alluded to as instantly claimed and instead it is something akin to a computer program or software or a module/part of a computer program, though with the nonce generic placeholder, “control unit,” being claimed as it is, 112 (f) interpretation is appropriate.
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, 3-12 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.
In claims 1 & 3 the limitations of the below are unclear:
“a control unit storing a program.., which when executed causes the control unit to control operations of the sample conveying device including….,”
“control unit configured to…,”
These terms are also used throughout Claims 4-12, so these are unclear as well for the reasons below.
These term, “control unit,” in the various form it is used in in the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because there are no clear structures disclosed in the instant specification for the claimed, “control unit” above.
The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous, especially when read in light of the specification; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
Specifically— there is a conflict between the instant claims and the instant specification for the claimed “control unit.” The claims make the, “control unit,” appear to be the structure that executes a program, while the instant specification, paragraph 0068 makes the “control unit,” appear to be a computer program or software, which is not structural.
Instant PGPUB paragraph states,” [0068] The control unit 1010 is a functional unit that controls an operation of each unit in the sample analysis system 1000 and each mechanism in each unit and that analyzes measurement data acquired by the analysis processing unit 1008. The control unit 1010 is implemented by a computer including a display device such as a liquid crystal display, an input device, a storage device, a CPU, a memory and the like. The control unit 1010 can check a location of the sample in the sample analysis system 1000 based on the ID information of the holder 102 by communication with each unit and each mechanism described above. The control unit 1010 controls an operation of each device based on various programs recorded in a storage device in the control unit 1010. Control processing of an operation executed by the control unit 1010 may be integrated into one program, may be divided into a plurality of programs, or may be a combination thereof. A part or all of the programs may be implemented by dedicated hardware or may be modularized.”
Since the claims are read in light of the specification, the instant claims are unclear for the reasons stated above.
As the specification describes the “control unit,” in the claims as a functional unit— and specifically as module or a part of a program stored “programmed,” or “configured to,” and therefore, it is not clear in the claims what is meant by a “control unit configured to,” and, “a control unit storing a program,” since especially as disclosed, the “control unit,” is not a structural device such as a CPU or computer which “configured to,” or “programmed to,” can indicate a structural change if a structure is in fact claimed.
Without clear structural parts though, as claimed, the “configured to,” language does not read structurally, and instead is intended use and intended programming for the device.
Further with respect to Claims 1 & 3, it is claimed that the control unit…controls operations of the sampled conveying device including the claim limitation that starts with “when the current flows through the winding..” From how this is claimed it is unclear if what follows this only happens, “when” so conditionally, so it is not clear if the control unit really controls these operations or not.
Claims 4-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1 & 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For Claims 1 & 3-12, the claimed:
“a control unit storing a program.., which when executed causes the control unit to control operations of the sample conveying device including….,”
“control unit configured to…,”
Specifically— there is a conflict between the instant claims and the instant specification for the claimed “control unit.” The claims make the, “control unit,” appear to be the structure that executes a program, while the instant specification, paragraph 0068 makes the “control unit,” appear to be a computer program or software, which is not structural.
Instant PGPUB paragraph states,” [0068] The control unit 1010 is a functional unit that controls an operation of each unit in the sample analysis system 1000 and each mechanism in each unit and that analyzes measurement data acquired by the analysis processing unit 1008. The control unit 1010 is implemented by a computer including a display device such as a liquid crystal display, an input device, a storage device, a CPU, a memory and the like. The control unit 1010 can check a location of the sample in the sample analysis system 1000 based on the ID information of the holder 102 by communication with each unit and each mechanism described above. The control unit 1010 controls an operation of each device based on various programs recorded in a storage device in the control unit 1010. Control processing of an operation executed by the control unit 1010 may be integrated into one program, may be divided into a plurality of programs, or may be a combination thereof. A part or all of the programs may be implemented by dedicated hardware or may be modularized.”
Since the claims are read in light of the specification, the instant claims wherein the control unit is a structural piece, is not described in the instant specification in a way that applicant has possession of the instantly claimed invention.
As the specification describes the “control unit,” it is a functional unit— and specifically as module or a part of a program stored “programmed,” or “configured to,” it is not clear in the claims what is meant by a “control unit configured to,” and, “a control unit storing a program,” since especially as disclosed, the “control unit,” is not a structural device such as a CPU or computer which “configured to,” or “programmed to,” can indicate a structural change if a structure is in fact claimed. The claims however described the control unit structurally by saying they store a program and are configured to.
Claims 4-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on Claims 1 & 3.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 3 & 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For Claims 1 & 3, multiple times in Claim 1 it is claimed that “the control unit is configured to.” Any time after the first time, this should read “the control unit is further configured to,” for clarity.
In Claims 1 & 3, line 9, “winding,” is referred to, but prior to this only “windings,” was claimed. This also appear throughout the rest of the claim and applicant should make sure it is consistent with what they mean.
In the 6th paragraph from the bottom of Claim 3, it claims “having a set current value set.” It is assumed that this is a typo and it is assumed that applicant means, “having a set current value.”
Claims 11 & 12 contain different preambles, but in the claim body only contains the “device according to claim 1.” As preambles are not limiting, this is essentially claiming the same thing as Claims 1 & 12, and therefore are duplicate claims and therefore would be/are objected to as duplicate claims. It is noted however due to the instant claim preambles, if Claims 11 & 12 were significantly amended, they would likely be restrictable from Claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over MALINOWSKI in US 20180217174 in view of NAGASAWA in JP 2010110146 and further in view of FRONE in US 20190237190.
With respect to Claims 1 & 3 MALINOWSKI teaches of a laboratory sample distribution system with a sample distribution/conveying device. The system comprises carriers to carry or convey as instantly claimed, sample containers.
MALINOWSKI teaches that each carrier comprises a magnetically active device. The system comprises a transport plane to support the carriers and electro-magnetic actuators stationary arranged below the transport plane (magnetic material disposed in conveyance path, as instantly claimed).
The actuators, which are included as a part of a magnetic circuit, move the carriers on top of the transport plane by applying a magnetic force/current to the carriers (abstract, paragraphs 0027-0028, 0032, 0046, 0049). The force is from current being supplied to coils (windings around an outer circumference as instantly claimed) of the electro-magnetic actuators (paragraphs 0020-0023).
MALINOWSKI also teaches of a sensor which measures the current in the circuits (paragraph 0028, 0048-0049, abstract).
The system further comprises a control device/ control unit as instantly claimed, to control the movement, “cause the sample container to perform the movement operation on the conveyance path,” as instantly claimed, of the carriers on top of the transport plane by driving the actuators such that the carriers move along corresponding transport paths simultaneously and independently from one another and a sensor (it controls the supplying of current and movement of container by magnetic coils/windings) to measure supply currents and/or supply voltages (abstract).
Further--- the control device controls a driving circuit. The driving circuit can further comprise a sensor 200, “current detector,” as instantly claimed, configured to measure currents Id supplied from the voltage source 230 to the H-bridge circuits 220 in a time multiplexed manner. For each coil 120, a corresponding current Id can be measured when the corresponding H-bridge circuit 220 actively drives the coil 120 (paragraph 0047-0048).
MALINOWSKI teaches of measuring currents (so this includes increase or decrease) in the current from the set current value caused by an increase in the conductor resistance of the winding when the current flows through the winding. The actuators are supplied with electrical energy based on the supply currents and/or the supply voltages (which are both at set values which are predetermined for predetermined movements through broadest reasonable interpretation of these terms). The system comprises a monitoring device coupled to the sensor. The monitoring device monitors the actuators temperature based on the measured supply currents and/or supply voltages (abstract).
MALINKOSWKI even further teaches of that the control unit is capable of detecting or “calculate,” ing as claimed a decreased in the current value as any detection would detect either increase or decrease or maintenance based on the current value or change in value as a teaching of value detection also teaches detection of change in value if it occurs (abstract, paragraph 0019-0022, 0006).
MALINOWSKI further teaches of a memory which is configured to monitor temperature values (paragraph 0030, 0051, claim 6).
However, for compact prosecution, MALINOWSKI does not specify that the control unit changes the current value according to a/the calculated decrease (which is a form of feedback control) over time. MALINOWSKI also does not teach of the memory specifically storing the current value as claimed.
Feedback control for driving a moving unit and a memory storing the information used to do this is a known thing, however since MALINOWSKI does not explicitly teach of this, NAGASAWA is used to remedy this.
NAGASAWA more specifically teaches of a linear motor 30 comprising a current feedback control unit 13 that outputs a new current command indicating a current value corresponding to the deviation (which reads on decrease or increase) between a current command value from a control device 20 and the output value from the current sensor 15 (Page 2, from bottom, paragraphs 3 & 4 & Page 3, paragraph 4).
NAGASAWA even further teaches of the device containing a ROM (memory) that stores programs and data executed by the CPU in advance, and a RAM (memory) that serves as a work area for the CPU, and an input device such as a keyboard, and an interface for transmitting and receiving signals between the driving device 10 and the three-phase linear motor 30. The device of NAGASAWA also has a control unit that functions in combination with the memory and the control unit contains functional units 21 and 22 of the control device 20 functions when the CPU executes a program stored in a ROM or the like (Page 2, 6 paragraphs from bottom). The memory further stores current value over time of current flowing through a coil/winding over time (Page 2, 7 paragraphs from bottom and 4 paragraphs from bottom, Page 3, paragraph 7-8 from top).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide feedback control based on a deviation of increase or decrease by using a control unit/device and memory as is done in in the device and method of NAGASAWA in the device of MALINOWSKI due to the advantage this current feedback and control gives the circuit and motor for high efficiency and low heat generation (Page 2, from bottom paragraph 3).
If it is still unclear that MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA teach of a memory that stores current value showing the change over time and of using and basing movement off of temperature versus current data, FRONE is used to remedy this.
FRONE teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time data from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour, so over time (paragraph 0082). This includes current data and temperature data (paragraph 0084, 0040, 0008, 0069, 0072, 0076-0077, 0080, 0082, 0085, 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082).
It is further noted, that independent Claims 1 & 3 and all of the dependent claims contain/s a large amount of functional language as instantly claimed with the “control unit,” functional unit storing a program and being “configured to”. As the prior art teaches of all the instantly claimed structures and since particularly the control unit as described in the specification is functional not structural, so there is not computer structure claimed as programmed to or configured to perform the claimed functions, if it is even a computer, processor, or controller the prior art is considered to be capable of the claimed functions and in particular of the storing temperature versus current value data as claimed.
With respect to Claim 4, MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051). MALINKOWSKI further teaches that if the monitored temperatures do not match an expected temperature profile, a malfunction of the fan may be deducted (paragraph 0029). MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA further teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time or associated magnetic force.
FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time data from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour (paragraph 0082). Further this includes current and temperature and associated magnetic field strength data to establish thresholds for these parameters so that a warning is displayed if deviations are found and so corrections and maintenance of the coil or board can be made (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data for magnetic field strength or measurements as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082).
With respect to Claim 5, MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection including the claimed arithmetic unit and monitoring/calculating a change or decrease as shown above. They do not teach of a memory that stores current value showing the change over time and temperature.
FRONE teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time data from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour, so over time (paragraph 0082). This includes current data and temperature data (paragraph 0084, 0040, 0008, 0069, 0072, 0076-0077, 0080, 0082, 0085, 0086).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082).
With respect to Claim 6, MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051). MALINKOWSKI further teaches that if the monitored temperatures do not match an expected temperature profile, a malfunction of the fan may be deducted (paragraph 0029). MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA further teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection including the claimed arithmetic unit. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time.
FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time data from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour to monitor changes/fluctuations (paragraph 0082). Further his includes current and temperature data to establish thresholds for these parameters so that a warning is displayed if deviations are found and so corrections and maintenance of the coil or board can be made (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082).
With respect to Claim 7, MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051). MALINKOWSKI further teaches that if the monitored temperatures do not match an expected temperature profile, a malfunction of the fan may be deducted (paragraph 0029). MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA further teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection. They do not teach of as storage unit that stores current value showing the change over time.
FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time data from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour and monitoring fo changes/fluctuations during this time(paragraph 0082). Further his includes current and temperature data to establish thresholds for these parameters so that a warning is displayed if deviations are found and so corrections and maintenance of the coil or board can be made (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082).
With respect to Claim 8, MALINOWSKI teaches that the force is from current being supplied to coils (windings as instantly claimed) of the electro-magnetic actuators (paragraphs 0020-0023) and that the coils/windings surround a core/pole (paragraph 0032, 0039, & 120 on Figure 1). MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051).
And FRONE teaches of the memory as claimed (see Claim 3 rejections).
With respect to Claim 9, MALINKOWSKI teaches of a memory configured to store the monitored temperature values to build a temperature history which may e.g. be used to check a deterioration of components (paragraph 0030, 0051). MALINKOWSKI further teaches that if the monitored temperatures do not match an expected temperature profile, a malfunction of the fan may be deducted (paragraph 0029). MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA further teach of the invention as shown in the above 103 rejection. They do not teach of control unit that stores current value showing the change over time.
FRONE is used to remedy this and teaches of an automated sensing device (abstract), which has a memory/storage unit that includes real-time data from the coils and vessel mover system and of logging the data by minute or hour over time (paragraph 0082). So this includes, an initial calculation and other measurements/estimates over time. Further his includes current and temperature data to establish thresholds for these parameters so that a warning is displayed if deviations are found and so corrections and maintenance of the coil or board can be made (paragraph 0084). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to use a memory and store real-time data as is done in FRONE in the devices of MALINOWSKI and NAGASAWA due to the advantage this gives for monitoring expected behavior and anomalous behaviors of the sensors and coils (FRONE, paragraph 0082).
With respect to Claim 10, MALINOWSKI teaches that the force in the magnetic circuit is from current being supplied to coils (windings as instantly claimed) of the electro-magnetic actuators (paragraphs 0020-0023) and that the coils/windings surround a core/pole (paragraph 0032, 0039, & 120 on Figure 1).
MALINOWSKI further teaches of the control unit function as claimed--- as shown for claim 1. And FRONE teaches of the memory as claimed and also of the function being based on threshold/test currents as instantly claimed (see Claim 3 rejections).
With respect to Claim 11, MALINOWSKI teaches of the laboratory sample distribution system is shown above for Claim 1. MALINOWSKI further teaches that this can be used with/for sample analysis (paragraph 0035).
It is noted that, since Claim 11 contains the same limitations as Claim 1, it has not been restricted instantly. See Claim 1 rejection for teaching of the claimed system. However— it that changes, upon amendment, restriction is possible.
With respect to Claim 12, MALINOWSKI teaches of the laboratory sample distribution system is shown above for Claim 1. See Claim 1 rejection further above. MALINKOWSKI teaches of using a device/system to pre-processing/pre-treatment (paragraph 0034).
It is noted that, since Claim 12 contains the same limitations as Claim 1, it has not been restricted instantly. However— it that changes, upon amendment, restriction is possible.
It is further noted, for Claims 1 & 3-10 that they contain a large amount of functional language. As the prior art teaches of all the instantly claimed structures and since particularly the arithmetic unit and storage units are not claimed as programmed to or configured to perform the claimed functions, if they are even a computer, processor, or controller the prior art is considered to be capable of the claimed functions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the 112 (f), 112(b) and 112 (a) rejections, the examiner notes that they are maintained for the claims as significantly amended 06/18/2026. The reasons for this are noted above, however the main reason is that there seems to be a mismatch between what is claimed with respect to the “control unit,” and what is disclosed in the specification. As nonce terms or generic placeholder terms, like “unit,” and “control unit,” as used in the instant claims do not convey sufficiently definite structure- the rejections are made as shown above due to the mismatch between the claims which seems to attempting to be claimed the control unit as a structure, while the specification indicates it is not a structure. See MPEP 2181 for further information.
Applicant does not make any arguments with respect to how they think the amendments made 06/18/2026 fix any issues with respect to 112, they just say that the rejections are moot in light of the amendments. The examiner disagrees with this and the 112 rejections are maintained as shown above.
Applicant does not make substantive arguments about the prior art other than to say that applicant does not think the prior art teaches of the claims as amended 06/18/2026, which the examiner disagrees with. As the claims were significantly amened, the 103 rejection above shows how the prior art reads on the instant claims.
Conclusion
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 REBECCA M FRITCHMAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4344. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-4:30 MT Monday-Friday.
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 on 571-270-7698. 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.
/REBECCA M FRITCHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights