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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-140320, filed on 09/02/2022.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 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.
Regarding Claim 2, there is a contradiction between the teaching of the instant independent claim 1 that the sum of forces F1 "is smaller than" the sum of forces F2 and the teaching of dependent claim 2 that F1 is larger than G and F2 is smaller than G. The teaching of dependent claim 2 that F1 is larger than G and F2 is smaller than G also appears in contradiction with the teaching of instant [0020] of the description that "it is preferable to make the sum of static frictional forces (F1) that the first terminal group receives from the contact surface smaller than gravity (G) generated by the mass of the sensor, and to make the sum of static frictional forces (F2) that the second terminal group receives from the contact surface larger than the gravity (G2) generated by the mass of the sensor" or of Figs. 12A, 12B that "F1 <G" and "F2>G". These contradictions between claim 1 and claim 2, and between claim 2 and the description/drawings leads to a lack of clarity of these claims. It is suggested that an error has probably been made in the wording of dependent claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, there is also an apparent contradiction between the teaching of dependent claim 3 that "a deflection amount [ ... ] for each terminal of the first terminal group is larger than a deflection amount [ ... ] for each terminal of the second terminal group" and the teaching of instant [0020] that appears to indicate the contrary and teaches that "the deflection amount [ ... ] for each of the terminals of the first terminal group" is "made smaller than the deflection amount [ ... ] for each of the terminals of the second terminal group". This contradiction between claim 3 and the corresponding passage of the description leads to a lack of clarity of the claim, at least when the claim is used to interpret the description. Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, and is thus unclear too.
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) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) based upon a public use or sale or other public availability of the invention. The instant invention is anticipated by Nishimura et al. (US20100276286A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nishimura et al. teaches a measurement system (See the Abstract, the blood glucose level measuring device 1, and Claim(s) 1-6 in [00101], [0048], [0061], [0074], [0079] in Fig. 1-15C), comprising a sensor and a measurement device including an insertion port into which the sensor is inserted (See how the blood glucose level measuring device 1 includes the biosensor 2 and the sensor insertion port 30 in [0048],[0056] in Fig. 1-3), wherein:
the measurement device measures a measurement target component contained in a liquid sample attached to the sensor in a state in which the sensor is inserted into the insertion port (See the blood glucose level measuring device 1 in [0048] in Fig. 1-3),
the measurement device includes a plurality of terminals that contact the sensor inside the insertion port (See the biosensor 2 and the sensor insertion port 30 in [0048],[0056] in Fig. 1-3), and the terminals slide on a contact surface at which the sensor faces the terminals during a period from start of insertion to completion of insertion of the sensor (See the plurality of terminals 42 and 43 in [0053]-[0061] in Fig. 1-6; Also, see the plurality of terminals 70-74 in [0079] in Fig. 11A-B),
a first electrode group (See electrodes 25-26, i.e. a first electrode group, in Fig. 4) located on a rear end side in an insertion direction and a second electrode group (See electrodes 27-28, i.e. a second electrode group, in Fig. 4) located on a farther distal end side as compared with the first electrode group are provided on the contact surface that contacts the terminals, in an insertion region of the sensor, which is a portion inserted into the insertion port (See how the plurality of terminals 42 and 43 contact terminal portions 25A to 28A of the plurality of electrodes 25 to 28 in the biosensor 2 when the biosensor 2 is loaded in the connector portion 4 from the sensor insertion port 30 in [0053]-[0061] in Fig. 1-6; Also, see the plurality of terminals 70-74 and the contact points 75-79 in [0079] in Fig. 11A-B),
the plurality of terminals receive static frictional forces from the contact surface by pressing the contact surface, and include a first terminal group (See the terminal 42, i.e. a first terminal group, in Fig. 3; Also, see the terminal 72, i.e. a first terminal group, in Fig. 11A-B) that contacts the first electrode group on a side closer to the insertion port than a side on which a second terminal group (See the terminal 43, i.e. a second terminal group, in Fig. 3; Also, see the terminals 70-71, 73-74, i.e. a second terminal group, in Fig. 11A-B) contacts the second electrode group (See how the terminal portions 25A to 28A of the plurality of electrodes 25 to 28 in the biosensor 2 contact the contact points 46 and 47 of the plurality of terminals 42 and 43 in the connector portion 4, and the biosensor 2 is subject to a pressing force directed downward generated from a spring property of the edge portions 44 and 45 of the terminals 42 and 43 in [0061], [0069], [0074] in Fig. 1-4; Also, see the contact points 64-67 of a plurality of terminals 60-63 in [0077] in Fig. 10A; See the plurality of terminals 70-74 and the contact points 75-79 in [0079] in Fig. 11A-B) and
a sum of static frictional forces that the first terminal group (See the terminal 42, i.e. a first terminal group, in Fig. 3; Also, see the terminal 72, i.e. a first terminal group, in Fig. 11A-B) receives from the contact surface (See the contact points 75-79 in [0079] in Fig. 11A-B) in a state in which the sensor is inserted into the insertion port is smaller than a sum of static frictional forces that the second terminal group (See the terminal 43, i.e. a second terminal group, in Fig. 3; Also, see the terminals 70-71, 73-74, i.e. a second terminal group, in Fig. 11A-B) receives from the contact surface (One with ordinary skills in the arts would infer that all individual contact point 75-79 create the same amount of static frictional forces on the associated individual electrodes, it is thus possible to define two terminal groups wherein a first terminal group configured to contact a side closer to the apply a lower sum of static frictional forces than a second terminal group located configured to contact a farther distal end side of the instrument).
The system of the instant claim 1 differs from the prior art only in that, at the level of the sensor, two sets of electrode groups are defined with a first electrode group associated with the first terminal group being located more on a rear end side in an insertion direction than a second electrode group associated with the second terminal group (whereas, in Nishimura et al. - Figs. 4, 11A-11B, all electrodes 25-28 are identical). However, the applicant should note what is discussed in MPEP § 2114 I-II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). The instant application recites the limitation “a sum of static frictional forces that the first terminal group receives from the contact surface in a state in which the sensor is inserted into the insertion port is smaller than a sum of static frictional forces that the second terminal group receives from the contact surface”, but fails to cover the structural components that execute said “static frictional forces” differences or define how the other apparatus components functionally or structurally relates to the “first terminal group” and the “second terminal group”.
Additionally, the applicant should note in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). The current claimed arrangement of the plurality of terminals, electrodes, and contact surfaces would render similar results as the measurement apparatus in the prior art.
Regarding Claim 2, Nishimura et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 1.
Nishimura et al. further teaches a measurement system (See the Abstract, the blood glucose level measuring device 1, and Claim(s) 1-6 in [00101], [0048], [0061], [0074], [0079] in Fig. 1-15C), wherein: the sum of static frictional forces that the first terminal group receives from the contact surface is larger than gravity generated by a mass of the sensor, and the sum of static frictional forces that the second terminal group receives from the contact surface is smaller than the gravity generated by the mass of the sensor (See how the terminal portions 25A to 28A of the plurality of electrodes 25 to 28 in the biosensor 2 contact the contact points 46 and 47 of the plurality of terminals 42 and 43 in the connector portion 4, and the biosensor 2 is subject to a pressing force directed downward generated from a spring property of the edge portions 44 and 45 of the terminals 42 and 43 in [0061], [0069], [0074] in Fig. 1-4; Also, see the contact points 64-67 of a plurality of terminals 60-63 in [0077] in Fig. 10A; See the plurality of terminals 70-74 and the contact points 75-79 in [0079] in Fig. 11A-B). Note in MPEP § 2114 I-II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." The instant application recites the limitation “the sum of static frictional forces that the first terminal group… mass of the sensor”, but fails to cover the structural components that execute said “static frictional forces” differences or define how the other apparatus components functionally or structurally relates to the “first terminal group”, the “second terminal group”, and the "sensor".
Regarding Claim 3, Nishimura et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 1.
Nishimura et al. further teaches a measurement system (See the Abstract, the blood glucose level measuring device 1, and Claim(s) 1-6 in [00101], [0048], [0061], [0074], [0079] in Fig. 1-15C), wherein a deflection amount caused by insertion of the insertion region for each terminal of the first terminal group is larger than a deflection amount caused by insertion of the insertion region for each terminal of the second terminal group (See the biosensor 2 and the sensor insertion port 30 in [0048],[0056]-[0079] in Fig. 1-11B). Note in MPEP § 2114 I-II. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." The instant application recites the limitation “a deflection amount caused by insertion of the insertion region for each terminal”, but fails to cover the structural components that execute said “deflection amount” differences or define how the other apparatus components functionally or structurally relates to the “first terminal group”, the “second terminal group”, and the "insertion region".
Regarding Claim 4, Nishimura et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 3.
Nishimura et al. further teaches a measurement system (See the Abstract, the blood glucose level measuring device 1, and Claim(s) 1-6 in [00101], [0048], [0061], [0074], [0079] in Fig. 1-15C), wherein: each of the plurality of terminals (See the plurality of terminals 42 and 43 in [0053]-[0061] in Fig. 1-6; Also, see the plurality of terminals 70-74 in [0079] in Fig. 11A-B) includes:
a mounting base portion (See how the housing member 3 includes a sensor insertion port 30 and has a follow structure defined by casings 31 and 32 in [0056] in Fig. 1-3);
an extending portion extending from the mounting base portion in a direction of the insertion port (See how the case 40 is adapted to retain the plurality of terminals 42 and 43 and the terminal platform 41, and also retain the biosensor 2. The case 40 includes a hollow portion 40A for retaining the terminal platform 41, and an opening 40B through which the biosensor 2 is inserted and removed in [0059] in Fig. 1-3); and
a contact portion bent in a direction in which the contact surface is located on a distal end side of the extending portion and in contact with the contact surface, and extending portions of terminals of the second terminal group are located closer to a side on which the contact surface is located as compared with extending portions of terminals of the first terminal group (See how the terminal platform 41 is provided to secure the plurality of terminals 42 and 43. The terminal platform 41 includes a plurality of slits 41A for housing the terminals 42 and 43, and a through hole 41B from which edge portions 44 and 45 of the terminals 42 and 43 project in [0056]-[0079] in Fig. 1-11B; See how the terminal portions 25A to 28A of the plurality of electrodes 25 to 28 in the biosensor 2 contact the contact points 46 and 47 of the plurality of terminals 42 and 43 in the connector portion 4, and the biosensor 2 is subject to a pressing force directed downward generated from a spring property of the edge portions 44 and 45 of the terminals 42 and 43 in [0061], [0069], [0074] in Fig. 1-4; Also, see the contact points 64-67 of a plurality of terminals 60-63 in [0077] in Fig. 10A; See the plurality of terminals 70-74 and the contact points 75-79 in [0079] in Fig. 11A-B).
Note in MPEP § 2144 VI. concerning the rearrangement of parts of a claimed invention in comparison to the prior art. The current claimed arrangement of the base portion, plurality of terminals, electrodes, and contact surfaces would render similar results as the measurement apparatus in the prior art.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (US20100276286A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oguchi (US20020037667A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Nishimura et al. teaches the system limitations of claim 1.
Nishimura et al. fails to explicitly teach a measurement system, wherein a contact portion of at least one terminal of the second terminal group is bifurcated.
However, in the analogous art of card connectors having overstroke for card mounting positions, Oguchi teaches a measurement system (See the Abstract, the combination of housing 1 and the IC card 4, and the Claim(s) 1-6 in [0002], [0027]-[0064] in Fig. 1-10), wherein a contact portion of at least one terminal of the second terminal group is bifurcated (See how in the IC card 402, although the second contact parts 204db and 205db contact the contact terminal parts 5, the first contact parts 204da and 205da come off rear ends of the contact terminal parts 5 and are out of contact with the contact terminal parts 5 in [0046] in Fig. 9-10; Also, see how the state of contact between the contact terminal part 5, and the first contact part 204da or 205da and the second contact part 204db or 205db of the ground or power connector terminals 204 and 205, wherein the first contact parts 204da and 205da are formed longer in a card insertion direction (arrow X) than the second contact parts 204db and 205db, and are placed on the side of a port through which the IC card 4 is inserted in [0046]-[0064] in Fig. 9-10).
Thus, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skills in the arts to modify the system of Nishimura et al. by incorporation a contact portion of at least one terminal of the second terminal group is bifurcated (as taught by Oguchi) for the benefit of controlling how the electrodes, terminals, and contact surfaces are grouped and connected in a system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following prior art teaches similar devices and methods: Gokuden et al. (US20190376921A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITNEY N WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (703)756-5959. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm CT.
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.
/BRITNEY N. WASHINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 1797
/JENNIFER WECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797