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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2007/0095159, hereinafter Champseix.
Regarding claim 1, Champseix teaches a nozzle structure (figures 1-4) comprising: a nozzle (item 5) that includes a pressed portion (item 21); and a holder (item 2) that includes an adjustment portion (items 23 and 43) and that supports the nozzle (figure 4), wherein: the pressed portion (item 21) is formed in an annular shape (figure 2) having an axis that is identical to an axis of the nozzle (figure 2), the adjustment portion (items 23 and 43) faces the pressed portion (figure 4) with a space therebetween obliquely above the pressed portion (figure 4), in a state in which the nozzle is supported by the holder (figure 4), and the adjustment portion returns the nozzle to a central axis side of the adjustment portion by a reaction force when the pressed portion abuts the adjustment portion (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is taught in figure 4 in that as the nozzle is inserted into item 23 and 43 would provide a force which pushes the nozzle when the nozzle abuts the adjustment portion).
Regarding claim 2, Champseix teaches wherein the holder has an opening (the opening where item 7 goes in item 2) that penetrates vertically for taking in and out the nozzle from a side (figure 4).
Regarding claim 3, Champseix teaches an insertion element (item 7) that is taken in and out of the holder (paragraph [0027]), wherein the nozzle is taken in and out of the holder while being attached to the insertion element (paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Champseix teaches wherein a gap (a gap between item 5 and 7 as paragraph [0026] describes the movement of item 5 within item 7) that allows inclination of the nozzle (any gap would allow for some amount of inclination) and that limits a maximum inclination amount of the nozzle (the gap is fixed in size and therefore would limit the inclination amount)) is provided between the nozzle and the insertion element, in a radial direction of the nozzle (figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Champseix teaches the insertion element (item 7) is formed with a slit (the opening where item 5 passes through item 7) that opens in a direction different from an insertion direction of the insertion element with respect to the holder (figure 2).
Regarding claim 8, Champseix teaches wherein a nozzle attachment hole (the opening where item 5 passes through item 7) is formed in a part of the slit (figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Champseix teaches wherein the insertion element (item 7) is provided with a grip portion (figure 2, the front portion of item 7) for operating the insertion element (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and could be used for holding the insertion element).
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, 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Champseix in view of EP 3418752, hereinafter Hara.
Regarding claim 5, Champseix teaches the adjustment portion and the pressed portion are respectively configured axially symmetrically (figure 4).
Champseix fails to teach the adjustment portion is a conical inner surface, and the pressed portion is an arc-shaped cross section surface or a tapered surface that faces the conical inner surface.
Hara teaches an automated analysis device with a needle attached to a holder in which the adjustment portion is a conical inner surface (Hara, paragraph [0063]), and the pressed portion is a tapered surface that faces the conical inner surface (Hara, paragraph [0063]) so that the needle is automatically moved relative to the support back to its original position by self-weight (Hara, paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a conical inner surface on the adjustment portion and a tapered pressed portion because it would allow for the nozzle to be automatically moved relative to the support back to its original position by self-weight (Hara, paragraph [0063]).
Regarding claim 6, Champseix teaches all limitations of claim 4; however, Champseix fails to teach a relationship of 2(L - R) tanψ> (D - 2R) is satisfied.
Hara teaches an automated analysis device with a needle attached to a holder in which the diameter between the supports and the guide is determined so that the needle can be replaced (Hara, paragraph [0065]) and so that the needle is automatically moved relative to the support back to its original position by self-weight (Hara, paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum height, diameter and radius so that the 2(L - R) tanψ> (D - 2R) is satisfied which would allow for the needle to be replaced (Hara, paragraph [0065]) and so the needle is automatically moved relative to the support back to its original position by self-weight (Hara, paragraph [0063]) (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 10, Champseix teaches the nozzle includes a nozzle main body (item 5) and a joint portion (where item 21 is attached) provided at an end portion opposite from a tip of the nozzle main body (figure 2).
Champseix fails to teach a conical inner surface is formed at the support portion, and a lower outer peripheral surface of the joint portion is a conical outer surface that fits the conical inner surface.
Hara teaches an automated analysis device with a needle attached to a holder in which a conical inner surface is formed at the support portion (Hara, paragraph [0063]), and a lower outer peripheral surface of the joint portion is a conical outer surface that fits the conical inner surface (Hara, paragraph [0063]) so that the needle is automatically moved relative to the support back to its original position by self-weight (Hara, paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a conical inner surface on the support portion and a conical outer surface on the lower outer peripheral surface of the joint portion because it would allow for the nozzle to be automatically moved relative to the support back to its original position by self-weight (Hara, paragraph [0063]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796