DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on 4/24/23, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 8-9, 12-14, 16, 18-19 and 21 are objected to.
Claims 1-11, 15, 17, 20 and 22-25 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 recites “the flow path member has, over an entirety of the flow path, a tilt angle”. For the sake of clarity consider rephrasing to ‘the flow path member has a flow path having a title angle throughout’.
Claim 9 recites “wherein a plurality of the openings”. For the sake of clarity, consider rephrasing to further comprising a plurality of openings’.
In addition, Claims 12-14, 16, 18-19 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 15, 17, 20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koike (US20050186113, cited in the Information Disclosure statement by applicant filed 12/15/2023).
With respect to Claim 1, Koike (US20050186113) teaches a specimen rack transport device (first transport device 102 in [0034]) comprising:
a transport mechanism (transport mechanism 102 a in [0034]) configured to transport, on a placement surface (tray 8 in [0052]), a specimen rack (specimen container holding member 31 in [0044) holding a specimen container (specimen container in [0034]);
a flow path member (tongue 8 a in [0052]) configured to receive a specimen spilled from the specimen container (specimen container in [0034]) onto the placement surface (tray 8) and cause the specimen to flow through the flow path member (tongue 8) (see [0052], which recites “the leading edge of the tray 8 is provided with a tongue 8 a for directing the specimen spilled in the tray downward”); and
a collecting container (removable bottom tray in [0052]) configured to collect the specimen having flowed through the flow path member (tongue 8) (see [0052], which recites “a removable bottom tray (not shown in the drawing) is provided below the tongue 8 a of the tray 8. Consequently, damage to the device is prevented even when specimen is spilled by providing the tray 8 and the bottom tray’).
With respect to claim 2, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1, wherein the flow path member (tongue 8 a) is at least partially disposed below a periphery of the placement surface (tray 8) and receives the specimen having dropped from the periphery of the placement surface (tray 8) (see [0052]) and Fig. 11)
With respect to claim 3, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1 wherein the flow path member (tongue 8 a) receives the specimen having passed through:
an opening (see Fig. 3) provided in the placement surface (tray 8) or in a raised surface raised with respect to the placement surface; or a gap between the placement surface and the raised surface.
With respect to claim 4, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1, further comprising a housing (which corresponds to the housing of transport unit 102b) disposed such that at least one of an opening (see Fig. 3) or a gap is formed between the housing and an edge of the placement surface (tray 8) or a raised surface raised with respect to the placement surface (tray 8) (see Fig. 3), wherein
the flow path member (tongue 8 a) receives the specimen having passed through at least one of the opening (see Fig. 3) or the gap between the housing and the edge of the placement surface or the raised surface raised with respect to the placement surface.
With respect to Claim 5, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 3, wherein the flow path member (tongue 8 a) is at least partially disposed below the opening (see Fig. 3) or the gap.
With respect to Claim 6, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 5, further comprising a housing (see Fig. 2) disposed such that at least one of an opening (see Fig. 3) or a gap is formed between the housing and an edge of the placement surface or the raised surface, wherein the flow path member (tongue 8 a) receives the specimen having passed through at least one of the opening (see Fig. 3) or the gap between the housing and the edge of the placement surface or the raised surface raised with respect to the placement surface.
With respect to Claim 7, Kioke teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1, wherein the flow path member (tongue 8 a) has a tilted surface that allows the specimen to flow thereon (see [0052]).
With respect to Claim 15, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 3, wherein a downwardly-extending portion having a shape bent downward or curved downward from the placement surface (tray 8) is provided at an edge of the opening in the placement surface (tray 8) (see Fig. 3).
With respect to Claim 17, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1, wherein the collecting container (removable bottom tray) is capable of being drawn out from the specimen rack transport device (the collecting container of Koike is capable of being drawn out from the specimen rack transport device).
With respect to Claim 20, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1, wherein the specimen rack (specimen container holding member 31) holds a specimen container (specimen container) having no cap (Koike doesn’t state that the specimen container has a cap).
With respect to Claim 22, Koike teaches a specimen analyzer comprising:
the specimen rack transport device of claim 1; and a measurement device (first analyzer body 101 in [0029], which recites “the first analyzer body 101 is provided with a suction unit 101 b which includes a specimen suction nozzle 101 a capable of moving in forward-and-back directions and vertical directions, analysis unit 107 for analyzing a specimen (urine) suctioned by the suction unit 101 b”) configured to measure a specimen inside the specimen container on the specimen rack transported by the specimen rack transport device (see claim 9).
With respect to Claim 23, Koike teaches the specimen analyzer of claim 22, wherein, in the specimen rack transport device, an upper side of at least a portion of the collecting container (specimen container 151) is opened (see Fig. 2), and the measurement device includes a suction nozzle (specimen suction nozzle 101 a in [0029]) capable of suctioning the specimen at a position above the collecting container (see [0029], which recites “the first analyzer body 101 is provided with a suction unit 101 b which includes a specimen suction nozzle 101 a capable of moving in forward-and-back directions and vertical directions, analysis unit 107 for analyzing a specimen (urine) suctioned by the suction unit 101 b”).
With respect to Claim 24, Koike teaches the specimen analyzer of claim 22, wherein the measurement device includes a controller (controller 112 in [0036]) programmed to control transport operation that is performed by the specimen rack transport device (see [0036], which recites “The first transport device 102 is provided with a controller 112. The controller 112 is provided with a microcomputer including a CPU, ROM, RAM and the like, and has the capability of communicating with the controller 110 and a controller 113 described later. The controller 112 has the function of controlling the transport mechanism 102 a”).
With respect to Claim 25, Koike teaches a method for collecting a specimen (urgent specimen) spilled from a specimen container (urgent specimen container 151 a) onto a placement surface (tray 8 in [0052], which recites “The tray 8 is provided below the urgent specimen container holder 3 to receive any urgent specimen that spilled from the urgent specimen container 151 a”) of a specimen rack transport device (analyzing system in [0053]) comprising a transport mechanism (transport mechanism 102 a in [0034]) configured to transport, on the placement surface (tray 8), a specimen rack (urgent specimen container holder 3) holding the specimen container (specimen container), the method comprising:
receiving the specimen by a flow path member (tongue 8 a in [0052]);
causing the specimen (urgent specimen) received by the flow path member (tongue 8a) to flow toward a collecting container (removable bottom tray in [0052]) by the flow path member (tongue 8 a) (see [052]); and collecting, by the collecting container (removable bottom tray), the specimen having been caused to flow by the flow path member. (tongue 8 a) (see [0052], which recites “he tray 8 is provided below the urgent specimen container holder 3 to receive any urgent specimen that spilled from the urgent specimen container 151 a. The tray 8 is inclined so as to be lower toward the front (arrow A direction in FIG. 3). The leading edge of the tray 8 is provided with a tongue 8 a for directing the specimen spilled in the tray downward. A removable bottom tray (not shown in the drawing) is provided below the tongue 8 a of the tray 8. Consequently, damage to the device is prevented even when specimen is spilled by providing the tray 8 and the bottom tray”)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kioke in view of Murakami (EP3889572A1).
With respect to Claim 8, Kioke teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1.
Kioke doesn’t explicitly teach that flow path member has, over an entirety of the flow path, a tilt angle of 1 to 100 with respect to a horizontal direction defined as 00.
In the analogous art of providing specimen analyzers, Murakami (EP3889572A1) teaches that flow path member has, over an entirety of the flow path, a tilt angle of 1 to 100 with respect to a horizontal direction defined as 00 (see [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specimen rack transport device disclosed by Kioke such that the flow path member has, over an entirety of the flow path, a tilt angle of 1 to 100 with respect to a horizontal direction defined as 00 with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of gently guiding a liquid down to the direction of tilt.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kioke.
With respect to Claim 9, Kioke teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 3.
Kioke doesn’t teach a plurality of the openings are provided in the placement surface or the raised surface, and the flow path member is at least partially disposed below the plurality of the openings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specimen rack transport device disclosed by Kioke by duplicating the opening of Kioke such that a plurality of the openings are provided in the placement surface or the raised surface, and the flow path member is at least partially disposed below the plurality of the openings with a reasonable expectation of success because the modification is a mere duplication of parts without a new and unexpected result (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kioke.
With respect to Claim 11, Kioke teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1.
Kioke doesn’t teach that the flow path member is composed of a plurality of members that cause the specimen to flow therethrough, and,
an upstream member among the plurality of members is disposed so as to enable the specimen to be transferred to a subsequent downstream member among the plurality of members.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specimen rack transport device disclosed by Kioke by duplicating the flow path member disclosed by Ito such that the flow path member is composed of a plurality of members that cause the specimen to flow therethrough, and, an upstream member among the plurality of members is disposed so as to enable the specimen to be transferred to a subsequent downstream member among the plurality of members with a reasonable expectation of success for the benefit of facilitating part replacement when one of the members fails only the member needs replacement and not an entire plurality of members as an integral piece.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kioke in view of Veiner (US20050194237)
With respect to Claim 10, Kioke teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1.
Kioke doesn’t teach that the flow path member is disposed non-linearly in a plan view.
In the analogous art of providing specimen transport systems, Veiner (US20050194237) teaches the flow path member (surface in [0005) is disposed non-linearly in a plan view (see [0005]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the specimen rack transport device disclosed by Kioke such that the flow path member is disposed non-linearly in a plan view as disclosed by Veiner because the modification is a mere change in shape without any new and unexpected result and a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration is significant (see MPEP 2144.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-14, 16, 18-19 and 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to Claim 12, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1.
Koike doesn’t teach that the flow path member has, in a cross section thereof perpendicular to a direction in which the specimen is caused to flow, a shape in which both ends of the flow path member are bent upward or curved upward.
With respect to Claim 13, Koike teaches specimen rack transport device of claim 3.
Koike doesn’t teach a lower end of the opening in the raised surface is at a higher position than the placement surface.
With respect to Claim 14, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 3.
Koike doesn’t teach a sealing member provided on a back surface side of the raised surface at a position of the opening.
With respect to Claim 16, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 1.
Koike doesn’t teach a housing having a side wall portion and a bottom plate and forming at least one of an opening or a gap between the housing and an edge of the placement surface or a raised surface raised with respect to the placement surface, wherein the bottom plate has an outlet provided at a position thereof corresponding to a downstream end of the flow path member, and the collecting container is disposed below the outlet provided in the bottom plate.
With respect to Claim 18, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 3, wherein the transport mechanism (first transport device 102) has a movement portion (specimen container holder 3 in [0055]) that is movable.
Koike doesn’t teach that the movement portion protrudes from the opening to a position above the placement surface, and transports the specimen rack on the placement surface by movement of the movement portion.
With respect to Claim 19, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 3, further comprising a sensor (sensor 7 in [0042]).
Koike doesn’t teach a sensor configured to detect the specimen rack on the placement surface through the opening.
With respect to Claim 21, Koike teaches the specimen rack transport device of claim 3.
Koike doesn’t teach that the transport mechanism includes a motor, and the motor is disposed at a position apart from positions below the opening and the gap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN BORTOLI whose telephone number is (571)270-3179. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM till 6 PM EST Monday through Thursday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander can be reached at (571)272-1254. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN BORTOLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797