DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments and remarks, filed on 12/31/2025, has been entered. The previous prior art rejection is applied to address the claim amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending and being examined.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bezanson et al (US 20220187101 A1; hereinafter “Bezanson”; already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Bezanson teaches a reaction vessel for a diagnostic analyzer (Bezanson; Abstract) comprising a plurality of processing stations1 (Bezanson; Fig. 8), comprising:
at least one sensor configured to measure at least one physical parameter associated with at least one of the processing stations of the diagnostic analyzer when disposed at the at least one of the processing stations during a test process of the diagnostic analyzer2 (Bezanson; Fig. 8; para [136, 210]; one or more transport parameters (or data associated with (e.g. indicative of) the one or more transport parameters) may be—detected by the at least one sensor…The at least one transport parameter may also provide for a comparison between alternative mixing parameters (e.g. mixing speeds, temperatures, durations, etc.) to adjust (or optimize) the mixing and/or coating process),
a memory configured to at least temporarily store at least one measurement value indicating the physical parameter provided by the sensor (Bezanson; para [27]; a memory module coupled to the controller, the memory module being configured to store the at least one transport parameter detected by the at least one sensor),
a processing unit configured to control the sensor and to output measurement data including the measurement value from the memory (Bezanson; para [27, 122]; the sensor assembly further comprises a memory module coupled to the controller…the sensor assembly 110 also includes a controller 116 communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor 114),
an interface configured to provide communication of the processing unit with an external electronic device (Bezanson; para [137]; a peripheral device may access the at least one transport parameter through a wired-connection, e.g. connecting the peripheral device by wire to the sensor assembly 110, through communications module 115),
a power source configured to supply electric power to the sensor, the processing unit and the memory (Bezanson; para [122]; the sensor assembly 110 also includes a controller 116 communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor 114, and electrically coupled to an energy storage module 118 (e.g. a battery) for energizing the controller 116),
wherein the reaction vessel defines an internal volume, wherein the sensor, the processing unit, the memory and the interface are arranged within the internal volume (Bezanson; Fig. 1B).
1 The limitation “for a diagnostic analyzer comprising a plurality of processing stations” is not a positively recited limitation. Specifically, the diagnostic analyzer and the plurality of processing stations” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The reaction vessel of Bezanson is capable of being used in a diagnostic analyzer as device is sent for further analysis.
2 Additionally, the limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the at least one sensor, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Bezanson and the at least one sensor of Bezanson is capable of being “configured to measure at least one physical parameter associated with at least one of the processing stations of the diagnostic analyzer when disposed at the at least one of the processing stations during a test process of the diagnostic analyzer”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed at least one sensor is not differentiated from the at least one sensor of Bezanson (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 3, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit comprises a microcontroller (Bezanson; para [122]; the sensor assembly 110 also includes a controller 116). In the instant specification, on para 31, the microcontroller can also refer to other co-processors such as a central processing unit (CPU), main processor or just processor, is the electronic circuitry within a computer that executes instructions that make up a computer program. Bezanson teaches that the controller instructs the memory module to write/retrieve data based on the sensor (Bezanson; para [213]).
Regarding claim 4, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the power source comprises a battery, a secondary battery, inductor and/or a capacitor (Bezanson; para [122]; an energy storage module 118, e.g. a battery).
Regarding claim 5, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the memory comprises a random access memory, a random access solid state memory, and/or a non-volatile memory (Bezanson; para [134]; The memory module 120 can include RAM, ROM, one or more hard drives, one or more flash drives or some other suitable data storage elements such as disk drives).
Regarding claim 7, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 5, wherein the non-volatile memory is selected from a magnetic disk storage device, an optical disk storage device, and/or a flash memory device (Bezanson; para [134]; The memory module 120 can include RAM, ROM, one or more hard drives, one or more flash drives or some other suitable data storage elements such as disk drives).
Regarding claim 8, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the interface is configured to provide wired and/or wireless communication of the processing unit with the external electronic device (Bezanson; para [137]; Communications module 115 may include a port for direct or indirect connection to the peripheral device, for example, a port for connection to a data transmission cable (wire, optical cable etc.) that is communicatively coupled to a computer storage medium (e.g. flash drive), or for connection directly to a peripheral device that contains a computer storage medium).
Regarding claim 9, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to output the measurement data by a wired protocol and/or a wireless protocol (Bezanson; para [137]; Communications module 115 may include a port for direct or indirect connection to the peripheral device, for example, a port for connection to a data transmission cable (wire, optical cable etc.) that is communicatively coupled to a computer storage medium (e.g. flash drive), or for connection directly to a peripheral device that contains a computer storage medium).
Regarding claim 10, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 9, wherein the wireless protocol is selected from Bluetooth, BLE or WiFi (Bezanson; para [133]; the communications module 115 may include at least one of a Wi-Fi module, a Bluetooth module and a NFC module configured to communicatively couple the controller 116 to the external peripheral device).
Regarding claim 11, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to output the measurement data by means of the interface (Bezanson; para [137]; to retrieve the transportation data from the memory module 120, the peripheral device can be coupled to connection hub 122 of the sensor assembly 110 via a cable (e.g. a USB cable)).
Regarding claim 12, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to output the measurement data when receiving a trigger signal from the external electronic device (Bezanson; para [133]; the sensor assembly 110 may include a communications module, such as for example a wireless transmitter 115 configured to communicatively couple the controller 116 to an external peripheral device).
Regarding claim 13, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the internal volume is 50 µl to 100 ml (Bezanson; para [104]; There are several standardized vials having volumes ranging between 1 and 10 mL, in increments of 1 mL).
Regarding claim 14, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the internal volume is 100 µl to 10 ml (Bezanson; para [104]; There are several standardized vials having volumes ranging between 1 and 10 mL, in increments of 1 mL).
Regarding claim 15, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, further comprising a light receiver (Benzanson; para [253]; The computing device 1104 may include an input device for entering information and making requests. For example, the input device may be a camera). Examiner notes that cameras receive light in order to take pictures/images.
Regarding claim 16, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 15, wherein the light receiver is a camera device (Benzanson; para [253]; The computing device 1104 may include an input device for entering information and making requests. For example, the input device may be a camera).
Regarding claim 17, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the external electronic device is a computer (Bezanson; para [137]; Communications module 115 may include a port for direct or indirect connection to the peripheral device, for example, a port for connection to a data transmission cable (wire, optical cable etc.) that is communicatively coupled to a computer).
Regarding claim 18, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the sensor is at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of: a temperature sensor, an orientation sensor, a gyroscope, an accelerometer, a magnetometer, a proximity sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, a pressure sensor, a GPS sensor, a humidity sensor, a pH meter, and an ion concentration sensor (Bezanson; para [208]; the at least one sensor 414 includes a plurality of sensors that include a 3-axis accelerometer, a 3-axis gyroscope, a 3-axis magnetometer, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, a light sensor, and/or a GPS tracker).
Regarding claim 19, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the reaction vessel comprises a plurality of different sensors (Bezanson; para [208]; the at least one sensor 414 includes a plurality of sensors).
Regarding claim 20, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor, the memory, the processing unit, the power source and the interface are arranged as a system on a chip device (Bezanson; Fig. 1B).
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 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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bezanson in view of Linda (Types of RAM: SRAM, DRAM, SDRAM, DDR, RDRAM [Partition Manager], 2020, https://web.archive.org/web/20201126211756/https://www.partitionwizard.com/partitionmanager/types-of-ram.html; hereinafter “Linda”; already of record).
Regarding claim 6, Bezanson teaches the reaction vessel according to claim 5, with the random access memory.
Bezanson does not teach wherein the random access memory is selected from DRAM, SRAM and/or DDR RAM.
However, Linda teaches RAM and the species (Linda; page 4) wherein the random access memory is selected from DRAM, SRAM and/or DDR RAM (Linda; page 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the random access memory of Bezanson to comprise SRAM as taught by Linda, because Linda teaches that the SRAM data is retained for long periods without power failure and no additional circuit refresh is required (Linda; page 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered, and some of the arguments are not found to be persuasive. The non-persuasive arguments are addressed below.
In the Applicant’s arguments, on page 8-11, the Applicant argues Benzanson fails to teach Bezanson teaches a reaction vessel for a diagnostic analyzer comprising a plurality of processing stations, comprising: at least one sensor configured to measure at least one physical parameter associated with at least one of the processing stations of the diagnostic analyzer when disposed at the at least one of the processing stations during a test process of the diagnostic analyzer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the “for a diagnostic analyzer comprising a plurality of processing stations” is not a positively recited limitation. Thus, “the diagnostic analyzer and the plurality of processing stations” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114. The reaction vessel of Bezanson is capable of being used in a diagnostic analyzer as device is sent for further analysis. Additionally, as cited by the Applicant, the instant specification teaches that the processing station can be selected from the group consisting of…vessel tray loader (Instant Specification; para [29]). The carrier of Bezanson is capable of being processed and used within a diagnostic analyzer and would be interpreted as a vessel tray. Further, Applicant argues Benzanson does not teach “at least one sensor configured to measure at least one physical parameter associated with at least one of the processing stations of the diagnostic analyzer when disposed at the at least one of the processing stations during a test process of the diagnostic analyzer”. The limitation is directed to the function and/or the manner of operating the at least one sensor, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Bezanson and the at least one sensor of Bezanson is capable of being “configured to measure at least one physical parameter associated with at least one of the processing stations of the diagnostic analyzer when disposed at the at least one of the processing stations during a test process of the diagnostic analyzer”. As such, it is deemed that the claimed at least one sensor is not differentiated from the at least one sensor of Bezanson (see MPEP §2114). The Applicant argues that the transport parameters are not “measurements at a processing station”. However, the Examiner notes parameters such as temperature, orientation, and light intensities are measurements that one of ordinary skill in the art would analyze when processing samples.
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 Austin Q Le whose telephone number is (571)272-7556. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at (571)272-1116. 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.
/A.Q.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796
Prosecution Insights