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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites “…a container configured to store the reagent disk in an inside of the container…”, however, it should recite “…a container configured to store the reagent disk inside of the container…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are: "drive device" in claim 1 and “heat removing device” in claim 8.
The ”drive device” is defined in the specification as a motor (specification, para 0031 and para 0052). Under the 3-prong analysis, the limitation should be interpreted under 112(f) for the following reasons:
The claim limitation uses the term ‘device’ which is a generic place holder for the
term ‘means’.
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language. The functional language
is ‘to rotate the reagent disk in a horizonal direction’.
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function. See MPEP §2181(I). The term "device" is not
modified by sufficient structure.
The ‘heat removing device’ is defined as a pipe that causes a refrigerant to flow through or a thermoelectric element (Specification, para 0029). Under the 3-prong analysis, the limitation should be interpreted under 112(f) for the following reasons:
The claim limitation uses the term ‘device’ which is a generic place holder for the
term ‘means’.
The generic placeholder is modified by functional language. The functional language
is ‘heat removing’.
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function. See MPEP §2181(I). The term "device" is not
modified by sufficient structure.
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.
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.
Claim 4 is 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 4 recites the limitation "a plurality of the fans". The limitation “the fans” is not mentioned in claim 1 which claim 4 in dependent upon. The limitation could be amended to read as “a plurality of fans”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirami et al (JP 6416673 B2). The examiner has obtained a machine translation of the JP document above. The rejection below is based off the machine translation.
Regarding claim 1, Hirami teaches a reagent cooling box comprising: a reagent disk ('reagent disk', para 0028) configured to hold a plurality of reagent vessels ('reagent bottles', para 0028) that holds reagents; a container configured to store the reagent disk in an inside of the container ('reagent cold storage cabinet', para 0028); a drive device configured to rotate the reagent disk in a horizontal direction ('drive unit', para 0028, Figure 3); and a fan provided to the reagent disk in a direction in which air can be blown in a rotation direction of the reagent disk ('circulation device', 0031).
Regarding claim 2, Hirami teaches the invention of claim 1. Hirami further teaches in the fan, an aspiration direction and a discharge direction are on a straight line, and an area on an aspiration side is equal to an area on a discharge side (para 0031, Figure 3, [20]).
Regarding claim 10, Hirami teaches the reagent cooling box invention of claim 1. Hirami further teaches an automatic analysis device comprising the reagent cooling box ('automatic analyzer', para 0022).
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 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirami et al (JP 6416673 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (US 20070104614 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Hirami teaches the reagent cooling box invention of claim 1.
Hirami does not teach the fan is any one of an axial fan, a mixed fan, or a sirocco fan.
However, Wang teaches an automatic chemistry analyzer comprising a reagent disk assembly (Abstract). Wang further teaches a temperature-controlled cavity inside the reagent disk assembly (para 0029) which includes an axial fan (para 0019) for the benefit of maintaining the reagent at an appropriate reaction temperature (para 0038). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hirami with an axial fan as taught by Wang for the benefit of maintaining the reagent at an appropriate reaction temperature (para 0038).
Regarding claim 6, Hirami teaches the reagent cooling box invention of claim 1. Hirami further teaches the reagent disk supports the fan such that the bottom of the fan is positioned below the reagent disk (Figure 3).
Hirami does not teach the reagent disk supports the reagent vessel such that the bottom of the reaction vessel is positioned below the reagent disk.
However, Wang teaches the reagent disk supports the reagent vessel such that a bottom of the reaction vessel is positioned below the reagent disk (Figure 3a) for the benefit of improving light absorbance measurements (para 0061). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hirami with the reagent disk supporting the reagent vessel such that the bottom of the reaction vessel is positioned below the reagent disk as taught by Wang for the benefit of improving absorbance measurements (para 0061).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirami et al (JP 6416673 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al (CN 207550945 U). The examiner has obtained a machine translation of the CN document above from OrbitExpress. The rejection below is based off the machine translation.
Regarding claim 4, Hirami teaches the reagent cooling box invention of claim 1.
Hirami does not teach a plurality of the fans are provided to the reagent disk at equal intervals so as to have the same air blowing direction.
However, Xu teaches a reagent disk with circulating fan ('reagent tray', para 0009). Xu further teaches that at least two fans are provided to the reagent disk at equal intervals so as to have the same air blowing direction (para 0020), for the benefit of uniform and constant temperature of the reagent disk (para 0020). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hirami with a plurality of fans so that they are provided to the reagent disk at equal intervals so as to have the same air blowing direction as taught by Xu for the benefit of uniform and constant temperature of the reagent disk (para 0020).
Claims 5, 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirami et al (JP 6416673 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Niiyama et al. (US 20180164336 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Hirami teaches the reagent cooling box invention of claim 1. Hirami further teaches the fan is installed below the reagent disk (Figure 3).
Hirami does not teach the reagent cooling box further comprises a spacer provided between an upper surface of the reagent disk above the fan and the container.
However, Niiyama teaches an automatic analyzer that equalizes the temperature in a reagent container storage apparatus (Abstract). Niiyama teaches a structure interposed between the reagent storage chamber and the inner wall (para 0029) for the benefit of transferring heat efficiently (para 0029). This structure is interpreted as a spacer. Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hirami with a spacer between an upper surface of the reagent disk above the fan and the container as taught by Niiyama for the benefit of transferring heat efficiently (para 0029).
Regarding claim 7, Hirami teaches the reagent cooling box invention of claim 1. Hirami further teaches a container ('reagent cold storage cabinet', para 0028) with a lid provided above the opening (para 0024).
Hirami does not teach the container including a thermally conductive heat absorbing container and stores the reagent disk and a heat insulating container that stores the heat absorbing container.
However, Niiyama teaches the container including a thermally conductive heat absorbing container and stores the reagent disk and a heat insulating container that stores the heat absorbing container (para 0026, Figure 2) for the benefit of improving cooling efficiency (para 0026). Thus, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hirami with the container including a thermally conductive heat absorbing container and stores the reagent disk and a heat insulating container that stores the heat absorbing container as taught by Niiyama for the benefit of improving cooling efficiency (para 0026).
Regarding claim 8, Hirami in view of Niiyama teaches the reagent cooling box invention of claim 7.
Hirami does not teach the container including a heat removing device provided on a side surface or bottom surface of the heat absorbing container.
However, Niiyama teaches the container including a heat removing device provided on a side surface or bottom surface of the heat absorbing container ('heat sink', para 0040) for the benefit of cooling the reagent storage apparatus more efficiently (para 0040). A heat sink is interpreted as a thermoelectric element. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hirami and Niiyama with the container including a heat removing device provided on a side surface or bottom surface of the heat absorbing container as taught by Niiyama for the benefit of cooling the reagent storage apparatus more efficiently (para 0040).
Regarding claim 9, Hirami teaches the reagent cooling box invention of claim 1. Hirami further teaches a controller configured to control each mechanism including fan (para 0019). Hirami further teaches the container includes a lid (para 0024).
However, Hirami does not teach the controller being configured to stop the fan when the lid is opened in a cooled state of the container, and operate the fan after the lid is closed.
However, Niiyama teaches the lid opening/closing mechanism (para 0019) for the benefit of efficiently switching out samples. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hirami with a lid opening/closing mechanism as taught by Niiyam for the benefit of efficiently switching out samples.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENA BERA whose telephone number is (571)272-9964. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00pm EST.
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.
/H.R.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights