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 .
Remarks
This Office Action fully acknowledges applicant’s remarks filed 07/01/2026. Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are pending. Claims 6 and 7 have been canceled. Claims 1, 5, 8, and 9 are amended. Claims 10 and 11 are newly added.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the spring recited in claim 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
1. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2019200161 to Iida (cited by applicant; hereafter “Iida ‘161”) in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2018185345 to Seki (cited by applicant) and Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2019082477 to Tawara et al.
Iida ‘161 teaches a reagent storage system and automatic analyzer that includes a rotating table 20431 on which a reagent container is placed, a casing (housing 2042) formed to be able to house the rotating table therein , a cover 2041 configured to cover an opening of the casing, a cooling unit 2046, a fan 2045 configured to circulate air in the casing so that an inside of the casing is cooled by the cooling unit, and a partition part (separation plate 2044) configured to partition a space formed by the cover and the casing into a space in which an opening part of the reagent container is present and a space in which a main body of the reagent container is present. [0042]-[0044]
Iida ‘161 teaches that air convection is generated in the second space in which the main bodies of the plurality of reagent containers are present, and convection in the second space is prevented from propagating in the first space in which the openings of the plurality of reagent containers are present. Thereby, it is possible to suppress evaporation of the reagent from the opening while keeping the temperature distribution in the reagent storage 204 constant. [0008] [0068]
As can be seen in Fig. 3 of Iida ‘161, the reagent containers 100 are received in holes in the separation plate 2044.
Iida ‘161 does not teach a preventing member configured, while being placed in a location where the reagent container is not placed, to prevent the air from flowing into the opening part of the reagent container through the location.
Seki teaches an automatic analyzer in which closing parts 17 that are the same shape of racks 15 that hold containers 14 are positioned to close holes 13a through which the contents of containers 13a can be accessed so as to block holes 13a when no container(s) are present as shown in Fig. 4.
Seki teaches that the closing parts prevent evaporation. [0029]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Iida ‘161 to include a “preventing member” in any of the reagent container receiving holes in the separation plate when reagent containers are not provided in the preventing member having a similar shape to the reagent containers in view of the teachings of Seki in order to prevent air conduction in the second space from passing into the first space and causing evaporation of the present reagent containers as taught as a concern and objective of Iida ‘161.
Iida ‘161 in view of Seki does not teach optical labels on the preventing member and reagent containers, a reading unit to read the labels and processing circuitry configured to determine whether or not either the reagent container or the preventing member is placed for each position on the rotating table based on the identification information read by the reading unit.
Tawara et al. teaches an automatic analyzer that include optical labels on reagent containers and an optical reader for reading information from the optical labels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Iida ‘161 in view of Seki to include optical labels on the reagent containers and the preventing members and an optical reader as taught by Tawara et al. for purposes of verifying the reagent information.
It would have further been obvious to provide circuitry to determine from the information read by the optical read where a preventing member is present or a reagent member is present, for purposes of determining if a reagent can be accessed at a given location.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 1, as note above Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders all the limitations of claim 1 obvious.
Therefore, Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders claim 1 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 2, as noted above Iida ‘161 of Seki and Tawara et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 2 depends.
Claim 2 recites that the preventing member has a same outer shape as that of the reagent container.
Seki teaches that the closing parts 17 that are the same shape of racks 15 that hold containers 14.
Therefore, in Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. it would have been obvious to provide the preventing member with the same outer shape as that of the reagent container to substitute for the reagent containers.
Therefore, Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders claim 2 obvious.
III.) Regarding applicant’s claim 3, as noted above Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 3 depends.
Claim 3 recites that the preventing member is configured to cover the location from above.
In Seki, the closing parts cover the location from above.
Therefore, in Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. it would have been obvious for the preventing member to cover the location from above.
Therefore, Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders claim 3 obvious.
2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Japanese Patent Application Publication No. JP2021128049 to Iida (here after “Iida ‘049”)
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 4 as noted above Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders claim 1 obvious from which claim 4 depends.
Claim 4 recites a tray that serves as a base disposed with respect to the rotating table and includes a plurality of partial trays respectively having installed thereon reagent containers including the reagent container that have mutually-different shapes, wherein a shape of the preventing member varies in accordance with the shapes of the reagent containers.
Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. does not teach a tray that serves as a base disposed with respect to the rotating table and includes a plurality of partial trays respectively having installed thereon reagent containers including the reagent container that have mutually-different shapes, wherein a shape of the preventing member varies in accordance with the shapes of the reagent containers.
Iida ‘049 teaches an agent storage and autoanalyzer in that has a rotating table that includes a plurality of partial trays as shown in Fig. 4A that includes reagent containers that have mutually-different shapes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. to include a rotating table that includes a plurality of partial that includes reagent containers that have mutually-different shapes as taught by Iida ’049 and configure the blocking member to be similar to the shapes of the reagent containers for purpose of using different reagent containers as taught by Iida ‘049.
Therefore, Iida ‘161 in view of Seki, Tawara et al. and Iida ‘049 renders claim 4 obvious.
3. Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida in view of Seki and Tawara et al.
Iida ‘161 teaches a reagent storage system and automatic analyzer that includes a rotating table 20431 on which a reagent container is placed, a casing (housing 2042) formed to be able to house the rotating table therein , a cover 2041 configured to cover an opening of the casing, a cooling unit 2046, a fan 2045 configured to circulate air in the casing so that an inside of the casing is cooled by the cooling unit, and a partition part (separation plate 2044) configured to partition a space formed by the cover and the casing into a space in which an opening part of the reagent container is present and a space in which a main body of the reagent container is present. [0042]-[0044]
Iida ‘161 teaches that air convection is generated in the second space in which the main bodies of the plurality of reagent containers are present, and convection in the second space is prevented from propagating in the first space in which the openings of the plurality of reagent containers are present. Thereby, it is possible to suppress evaporation of the reagent from the opening while keeping the temperature distribution in the reagent storage 204 constant. [0008] [0068]
As can be seen in Fig. 3 of Iida ‘161, the reagent containers 100 are received in holes in the separation plate 2044.
Iida ‘161 does not teach a preventing member configured, while being placed in a location where the reagent container is not placed, to prevent the air from flowing into the opening part of the reagent container through the location.
Seki teaches an automatic analyzer in which closing parts 17 that are the same shape of racks 15 that hold containers 14 are positioned to close holes 13a through which the contents of containers 13a can be accessed so as to block holes 13a when no container(s) are present as shown in Fig. 4.
Seki teaches that the closing parts prevent evaporation. [0029]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Iida ‘161 to include a “preventing member” in any of the reagent container receiving holes in the separation plate when reagent containers are not provided in the preventing member having a similar shape to the reagent containers in view of the teachings of Seki in order to prevent air conduction in the second space from passing into the first space and causing evaporation of the present reagent containers as taught as a concern and objective of Iida ‘161.
Iida ‘161 in view of Seki does not teach processing circuitry configured to judge whether or not the location has occurred; and an output apparatus configured, when the location has occurred, to output information recommending that the preventing member be placed in the location.
Tawara et al, teaches an automatic analyzer that include optical labels on reagent containers and an optical reader for reading the optical labels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Iida ‘161 in view of Seki to include optical labels on the reagent containers and the preventing members and an optical reader as taught by Tawara et al. for purposes of verifying the reagent information and if a preventing member is present, for purposes of identifying reagent container and preventing members during operation so that the analyzer only attempts to access reagent where a reagent container is location.
I.) Regarding applicant’s claim 5, as note above Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders all the limitations of claim 5 obvious.
Therefore, Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
II.) Regarding applicant’s claim 8, as noted above Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders claim 5 obvious from which claim 8 depends.
Claim 8 recites that the processing circuitry is further configured to rotate the rotating table and control the reading unit so as to read the identification information from the optical labels.
In Iida ‘161 the turntable rotates so that the reagent container is located at dispenser arms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. to modify the processing circuitry in Iida ‘161 to rotate the rotating table and control the reading unit so as to read the identification information from the optical labels.
Therefore, Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Tawara et al. renders claim 8 obvious.
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Seko in view of Iida ‘161 and Tawara et al.
Seki teaches an automatic analyzer in which closing parts 17 that are the same shape of racks 15 that hold containers 14 are positioned to close holes 13a through which the contents of containers 13a can be accessed so as to block holes 13a when no container(s) are present as shown in Fig. 4.
Seki teaches that the closing parts prevent evaporation. [0029]
Iida ‘161 teaches a reagent storage system and automatic analyzer that includes a rotating table 20431 on which a reagent container is placed, a casing (housing 2042) formed to be able to house the rotating table therein , a cover 2041 configured to cover an opening of the casing, a cooling unit 2046, a fan 2045 configured to circulate air in the casing so that an inside of the casing is cooled by the cooling unit, and a partition part (separation plate 2044) configured to partition a space formed by the cover and the casing into a space in which an opening part of the reagent container is present and a space in which a main body of the reagent container is present. [0042]-[0044]
Iida ‘161 teaches that air convection is generated in the second space in which the main bodies of the plurality of reagent containers are present, and convection in the second space is prevented from propagating in the first space in which the openings of the plurality of reagent containers are present. Thereby, it is possible to suppress evaporation of the reagent from the opening while keeping the temperature distribution in the reagent storage 204 constant. [0008] [0068]
As can be seen in Fig. 3 of Iida ‘161, the reagent containers 100 are received in holes in the separation plate 2044.
Iida ‘161 does not teach a preventing member configured, while being placed in a location where the reagent container is not placed, to prevent the air from flowing into the opening part of the reagent container through the location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the closing parts of Seki to have the shape of the reagent containers of Iida ‘161 for purposes of placing the resulting “preventing members” in open places in the turntable of Iida ‘161 to prevent airflow and evaporation or reagents.
Seki in view of Iida does not teach optical labels on the preventing members.
Tawara et al. teaches an automatic analyzer that include optical labels on reagent containers and an optical reader for reading information from the optical labels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify the preventing member of Seko in view of Iida ‘161 to include optical labels on the reagent containers and the preventing members and an optical reader as taught by Tawara et al. for purposes of verifying the reagent the presence of either reagent containers or preventing members at locations of the automatic analysis system.
Therefore, Seko in view of Iida ‘161 and Tawara et al. renders claim 9 obvious.
5. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and European Patent Application Publication No. EP2023148 to Kayahara et al.
Iida ‘161 teaches a reagent storage system and automatic analyzer that includes a rotating table 20431 on which a reagent container is placed, a casing (housing 2042) formed to be able to house the rotating table therein , a cover 2041 configured to cover an opening of the casing, a cooling unit 2046, a fan 2045 configured to circulate air in the casing so that an inside of the casing is cooled by the cooling unit, and a partition part (separation plate 2044) configured to partition a space formed by the cover and the casing into a space in which an opening part of the reagent container is present and a space in which a main body of the reagent container is present. [0042]-[0044]
Iida ‘161 teaches that air convection is generated in the second space in which the main bodies of the plurality of reagent containers are present, and convection in the second space is prevented from propagating in the first space in which the openings of the plurality of reagent containers are present. Thereby, it is possible to suppress evaporation of the reagent from the opening while keeping the temperature distribution in the reagent storage 204 constant. [0008] [0068]
As can be seen in Fig. 3 of Iida ‘161, the reagent containers 100 are received in holes in the separation plate 2044.
Iida ‘161 does not teach a preventing member configured, while being placed in a location where the reagent container is not placed, to prevent the air from flowing into the opening part of the reagent container through the location.
Seki teaches an automatic analyzer in which closing parts 17 that are the same shape of racks 15 that hold containers 14 are positioned to close holes 13a through which the contents of containers 13a can be accessed so as to block holes 13a when no container(s) are present as shown in Fig. 4.
Seki teaches that the closing parts prevent evaporation. [0029]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Iida ‘161 to include a “preventing member” in any of the reagent container receiving holes in the separation plate when reagent containers are not provided in the preventing member having a similar shape to the reagent container in view of the teachings of Seki in order to prevent air conduction in the second space from passing into the first space and causing evaporation of the present reagent containers as taught as a concern and objective of Iida ‘161.
Iida ‘161 does teaches partition part configured to partition a space formed by the cover and the casing into a space in which an opening part of the reagent container is present and a space in which a main body of the reagent container is present that, as shown in Fig. 7, is similar to applicant’s partition part shown in Fig. 3
Iida ‘161 in view of Seki does not teach the preventing member is provided with a flange and the preventing member is placed on the partition part by the flange while the preventing member is fitted in a projection hole in the partition part.
Kayahara et al. teaches the use of flanges 2a on upper portions of container 2 which flanges come into contact with holes in a turntable. [0020]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify the reagent containers and preventing members of Iida ‘161 in view of Seki to include flanges as taught by Kayahara et al. for purposes of supporting the reagent containers and preventing members in the openings of the turntable in the manner taught by Kayahara et al.
Therefore, Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Kayahara et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
6. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and U.S. Patent No. 10,000,116 to Sasaki.
Iida ‘161 teaches a reagent storage system and automatic analyzer that includes a rotating table 20431 on which a reagent container is placed, a casing (housing 2042) formed to be able to house the rotating table therein , a cover 2041 configured to cover an opening of the casing, a cooling unit 2046, a fan 2045 configured to circulate air in the casing so that an inside of the casing is cooled by the cooling unit, and a partition part (separation plate 2044) configured to partition a space formed by the cover and the casing into a space in which an opening part of the reagent container is present and a space in which a main body of the reagent container is present. [0042]-[0044]
Iida ‘161 teaches that air convection is generated in the second space in which the main bodies of the plurality of reagent containers are present, and convection in the second space is prevented from propagating in the first space in which the openings of the plurality of reagent containers are present. Thereby, it is possible to suppress evaporation of the reagent from the opening while keeping the temperature distribution in the reagent storage 204 constant. [0008] [0068]
As can be seen in Fig. 3 of Iida ‘161, the reagent containers 100 are received in holes in the separation plate 2044.
Iida ‘161 does not teach a preventing member configured, while being placed in a location where the reagent container is not placed, to prevent the air from flowing into the opening part of the reagent container through the location.
Seki teaches an automatic analyzer in which closing parts 17 that are the same shape of racks 15 that hold containers 14 are positioned to close holes 13a through which the contents of containers 13a can be accessed so as to block holes 13a when no container(s) are present as shown in Fig. 4.
Seki teaches that the closing parts prevent evaporation. [0029]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Iida ‘161 to include a “preventing member” in any of the reagent container receiving holes in the separation plate when reagent containers are not provided in the preventing member having a similar shape to the reagent container in view of the teachings of Seki in order to prevent air conduction in the second space from passing into the first space and causing evaporation of the present reagent containers as taught as a concern and objective of Iida ‘161.
Iida ‘161 teaches partition part configured to partition a space formed by the cover and the casing into a space in which an opening part of the reagent container is present and a space in which a main body of the reagent container is present that, as shown in Fig. 7 is similar to applicant’s partition part shown in Fig. 3
Iida ‘161 in view of Seki does not teach that the partition is provided with a cover and a spring and the cover covers an opening in the partition part with biasing force of the spring.
Sasaki teaches the use of a pair of spring biased flaps 18 that close an aperture into which a nozzle can be inserted thereby opening the flaps. (column 7, line 66 through column 8, line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to modify Iida ‘161 in view of Seki to provide openings on the partitions with a closing mechanism similar to that taught by Sasaki including spring biased flaps (covers) to close opening when no reagent tubes are inserted so as to prevent airflow through the openings and evaporation of the reagents.
Therefore, Iida ‘161 in view of Seki and Sasaki renders claim 11 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejections relies on new prior art of Kayahara et al. and Sasaki as necessitated by applicant’s adding new claims 10 and 11.
Otherwise, applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Iida ‘161 fails to disclose optical labels and a preventing member configured to be placed in a location where a reagent container is not present.
These arguments are not persuasive inasmuch as Seki has been relied upon as teaching blocking members (preventing members) and Tawara et al. has been relied upon as teaching optical labels.
Applicant argues that Iida ‘161 and Tawara et al. fails to teach or suggest optical labels including identification information identifying the preventing member are attached to the preventing member, wherein the reagent storing system further comprises: a reading unit configured to read the optical labels attached to the reagent container and the preventing member, and processing circuitry configured to determine whether or not either the reagent container or the preventing member is placed for each position on the rotating table based on the identification.
As noted above It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include the optical labels on both reagent containers and preventing members in Iida ‘161 in view of Seki for purposes determining with a reagent container or a preventing member is in a location where a reagent (only provided in a reagent container) is accessible during operation of the analyzer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL STANLEY GZYBOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights