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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 6-7 and 11 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.
On lines 4-6 of claim 6, the phrase “the controller adds information relating to the cancellation to the information on the sample relating to the sucking that is cancelled or the cleaning that is cancelled” is indefinite since it is confusing as to what is actually being recited here. It is suggested to change this phrase to –the controller adds information relating to the cancellation of the sucking or the cancellation of the cleaning to the information on the sample stored in the memory—in order to clarify what is being recited in claim 6.
On lines 1-4 of claim 7, the phrase “wherein if the controller adds the information relating to the cancellation to the information on the sample relating to the sucking that is cancelled or to the cleaning that is cancelled,” is indefinite since it is confusing as to what is actually being recited here. It is suggested to change this phrase to – wherein if the controller adds information relating to the cancellation of the sucking or the cancellation of the cleaning to the information on the sample stored in the memory, -- in order to clarify what is being recited in claim 7.
On lines 2-3 of claim 11, the phrase “is an electrode configured to measure a potential of capacitance” is indefinite since an electrical potential is different from an electrical capacitance. Therefore, it is not clear what the recited electrodes in claim 11 measure.
Inventorship
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jifuku et al (US 2024/0248109).
With regards to claims 1 and 14, Jifuku et al teach of an automatic analyzer (see the title and abstract of Jifuku et al) and a method for detecting adhesion of a liquid droplet to a probe in the automatic analyzer (see paragraph 0069 in Jifuku et al), wherein the automatic analyzer comprises a probe 40 configured to perform sucking and discharging of a sample and/or a reagent, a detector 410 configured to detect that the probe 40 is in contact with a liquid, and a controller 11 configured to detect that a liquid droplet adheres to the probe 40 based on a detection result of the detector 410. See paragraphs 0046, 0050, 0056, and 0068-0069 in Jifuku et al which state:
PNG
media_image1.png
278
351
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
117
331
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
84
343
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
70
365
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
496
331
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Jifuku et al teach that the corresponding method for using the automatic analyzer comprising the probe 40 and the detector 410 comprises detecting that a liquid droplet adheres to the probe based on a detection result of the detector 410. See Figures 4, 8 and paragraphs 0046, 0050, 0056, 0068-0069 in Jifuku et al reproduced above.
With regards to claim 8, Jifuku et al teach that when the controller 11 detects that a liquid droplet adheres to the probe, the controller 11 causes the probe to be cleaned. See paragraphs 0063 and 0069 in Jifuku et al reproduced above.
With regards to claim 10, Jifuku et al teach that the controller 11 sends a notification to an operator when detecting that the liquid droplet adheres to the probe 40. See paragraphs 0046, 0052 and 0080 in Jifuku et al.
With regards to claims 11-12, Jifuku et al teach that the detector 410 is an electrode configured to measure a capacitance, and that the electrode is disposed at a tip portion of the probe 40. See paragraphs 0056 and 0076 in Jifuku et al.
With regards to claim 13, Jifuku et al teach that the detector 410 is both capable of detecting that the probe 40 is in contact with a fluid contained in a container, and capable of detecting that the probe 40 is in contact with a liquid droplet. See paragraphs 0050, 0063 and 0069 in Jifuku et al.
The applied reference has a common Applicant/Assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marziali et al (US 2008/0047368).
With regards to claim 1, Marziali et al teach of an automatic analyzer for dispensing a reagent onto a sample. See paragraph 0009 in Marziali et al. The automatic analyzer comprises a probe 11 having a tip for discharging reagents to a sample, a detector 40 configured to detect that the probe 11 is in contact with a liquid, and a controller 20 configured to detect that a liquid droplet adheres to the probe 11 based on a detection result of the detector 40. See Figures 1 and 3, and paragraphs 0030, 0058, 0063-0065, and 0091 in Marziali et al which state:
PNG
media_image6.png
135
330
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
219
359
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
228
333
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
66
351
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
260
335
media_image10.png
Greyscale
With regards to claims 2-3, Marziali et al teach that the controller 20 judges that the liquid droplet adheres to the probe 11 when a signal detected by the detector 40 is not within a range of a threshold value, particularly when the signal detected by the detector 40 is less than a lower limit threshold value. See paragraph 0063 in Marziali et al where it states:
PNG
media_image11.png
106
337
media_image11.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 4, Marziali et al teach that the signal is detected by the detector after a movement of the probe is finished or halted. See paragraph 0073 in Marziali et al which states:
PNG
media_image12.png
145
358
media_image12.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 8, Marziali et al teach that when the controller 20 detects that a liquid droplet of a reagent on the probe 11 still adheres to the probe 11 after spotting the reagent onto a sample, the controller 20 causes the probe to be cleaned. See paragraph 0084 in Marziali et al which states:
PNG
media_image13.png
173
342
media_image13.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 12, Marziali et al teach that the detector 40 is disposed at the tip portion 12 of the probe 11. See paragraph 0058 in Marziali et al which states:
PNG
media_image7.png
219
359
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 13, Marziali et al teach that that the detector 40 is capable of both detecting that the probe 11 is in contact with a fluid contained in a container, and capable of detecting that the probe 11 is in contact with a liquid droplet since the detector 40 comprising electrodes located at the probe tip 12 of the probe 11 causes an electrical current to flow between the electrodes when the electrodes contact any type of liquid, including both a liquid contained in a container and a liquid droplet of a reagent adhering to the tip 12 of the probe 11.
With regards to claim 14, Marziali et al teach of a method for detecting the adhesion of a reagent liquid droplet to a probe 11 in an automatic analyzer including a probe 11 configured to perform sucking and discharging of a sample and/or a reagent, and a detector 40 comprising electrodes configured to detect that the probe 11 is in contact with a liquid, wherein the method comprises detecting that a liquid droplet of a reagent adheres to the probe 11 based on a detection result of the detector 40. See Figures 1 and 3, and paragraphs 0030, 0058, 0063-0065, and 0091 in Marziali et al reproduced above.
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marziali et al (US 2008/0047368). For a teaching of Marziali et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
With regards to claims 5-7 and 9-11, Marziali et al fail to specifically teach of the specific limitations recited in each of these claims. However, with regards to claims 5-7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cancel the sucking of a reagent by the probe 11 taught by Marziali et al or to cancel the cleaning of the probe, and to store such cancellation information in a memory of the automatic analyzer and send a notification of the cancellation to an operator of the automatic analyzer, when the detector (i.e. electrodes 40) on the tip 12 of the probe 11 detects that a liquid droplet of reagent still adheres to the probe 11 after the sucking of the reagent or after the cleaning of the probe 11 because these operations would prevent the liquid droplet of reagent adhered to the probe 11 from contaminating a further reagent or sample sucked and discharged by the probe, prevent erroneous results from being produced by the automatic analyzer, and allow the improper operation of the analyzer to be both stored for future reference and notified to an operator so that the analyzer may be shut down for servicing.
With regards to claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to judge whether a further sucking operation is possible with the probe 11 taught by Marziali et al after the probe is cleaned because the detector (i.e. electrodes 40) on the tip 12 of the probe 11 allows a determination of whether the cleaning operation is successful at removing any remaining liquid droplets of an initial reagent on the probe.
With regards to claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send a notification to an operator of the automatic analyzer taught by Marziali et al when detecting that a liquid droplet adheres to the probe 11 because this notification would prevent the operator from further using the probe 11 to suck and discharge additional reagents which may become contaminated with the liquid droplet of reagent still adhered to the probe 11.
With regards to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an electrode that is configured to measure an electrical potential or capacitance as the detector on the tip 12 of the probe 11 taught by Marziali et al which is configured to detect a liquid droplet adhered to the probe 11 because Marziali et al teach that the detector on the tip 12 of the probe 11 can be comprised of electrodes 40 which produce an electrical connection (i.e. current flow) between one another when contacted with a liquid droplet, and an alteration of an electrical potential or capacitance between the electrodes would also be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art when contacted with a liquid droplet in the same manner as the detector electrodes used in the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please make note of: Minami et al (US 2024/0230701) who teach of an automatic analyzer comprising a probe configured to dispense a sample or a reagent and having a capacitance sensor associated therewith to detect contact of the probe with a cleaning liquid; Muramatsu et al (US 2021/0341506) who teach of an automatic analyzer containing a probe for dispensing samples and reagents and a probe guide, wherein a liquid surface detector mechanism detects a change in capacitance between the probe guide and the probe in order to detect a liquid surface; Kitamura et al (US 2011/0274584) who teach of an automatic analyzer comprising a dispensing probe and a detecting unit to detect a sample in a sample container by an end part of the dispensing probe; and Daume et al (US 2020/0393480) who teach of an apparatus for optically monitoring a dose of a liquid to be pipetted, and evaluating images of a drop of liquid that adheres to a pipette.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is (571)272-1266. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:30 AM to 4:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lyle Alexander, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/MAUREEN WALLENHORST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797 September 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights