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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: AUTOMATIC ANALYZING APPARATUS HAVING A DETACHABLE WIRING FIXING PART.
Drawings
Figure 14 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitations are:
“…a position restricting means for restricting sliding of the guiding rail in the guiding groove” in claims 4 & 13.
“…a position determining means for determining a positional relationship between the placement part and the wiring fixing part” in claims 5 & 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Specification states:
In Paragraph [0046], the instant application describes the corresponding structure of slopes being “a position restricting means for restricting sliding of the guiding rail in the guiding groove”, and in Paragraph [0053] describes the corresponding structure of a position determining slope being “a position determining means for determining a positional relationship between the placement part and the wiring fixing part.”
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-18 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.
In regards to line 10 of claim 1, the phrase “it is possible to pull out the wiring fixing part” is ambiguous. Either the wiring fix part is detachable or not. The limitation will be read as “wherein the wiring fixing part is detachably connected to the bottom face side of the placement part.”
In regards to line 9 of claim 10, the phrase “it is possible to pull out the wiring fixing part” is ambiguous. Either the wiring fix part is detachable or not. The limitation will be read as “wherein the wiring fixing part is detachably connected to the bottom face side of the placement part.”
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 & 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As best understood in the Examiner’s opinion in regards to claim 1, Klas et al (US 12135270 B2) teaches an automated and semi-automated apparatus for processing samples comprising a replaceable and removable sample pathway module (100) including a distribution block (110) and a microfluidic module (150). The distribution block (110) comprises a body (112), device face (111), handle (114), set of aligning pins or rods (116), and sample straw (118). A set of releasable couplings, including a sample pathway coupling (103) and sheath or buffer fluid coupling (105), are used to join sample fluid pathways and sheath or buffer fluid pathways in the distribution block (110) to corresponding pathways in the microfluidic module (150) via respective sample fluid tubing 102 (i.e. first fluidic line) and sheath or buffer fluid tubing 104 (i.e. second fluidic line) (Column 32, lines 6-33; Figure 5).
However, Klas et al does not teach the structural limitations of the automatic analyzing apparatus further comprising a wiring fixing part attached to a bottom face side of the placement part while a wiring connected to at least one of the reagent storage and the reaction vessel is fixed to a bottom face side of the wiring fixing part wherein the wiring fixing part is detachably connected to the bottom face side of the placement part where the stated limitations are not suggested in addition to not being anticipated or taught in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 1 upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. The remaining claims are allowed due to their dependency.
As best understood in the Examiner’s opinion in regards to claim 10, Kuo et al (US 20100094564 A1) teaches an automated analytical strip reading apparatus (10) configured to read a reaction signal emitted from an analytical strip (20) which includes a housing (100), a monitor (200), a delivering device (300), an optical reader (400), a reaction signal reader (500) and a control module (6). The analytical strip (20) comprises at least one reaction zone (21) for presenting the reaction signal, and at least one optically readable pattern (22) (as shown in FIG. 2B). The optically readable pattern (22) contains identification information of the analytical strip (20) and can be a one-dimensional barcode, a two-dimensional barcode or any optically readable patterns that are read with visible light, ultraviolet light or infrared light, so as to facilitate reading of the identification information of the analytical strip (20). Moreover, an optical reader (400) may be freely detachable from the housing (100) to facilitate operation by the user. The optical reader (400), when detached, communicates with the analytical strip reading apparatus (10) via wireless or wire-based transmission. (Paragraphs 0027 & 0030; Figures 1A & 1B).
However, Kuo et al does not teach the structural limitations of the automatic analyzing apparatus further comprising a wiring fixing part attached to a bottom face side of the placement part while a wiring connected to at least one of the reagent storage and the reaction vessel is fixed to a bottom face side of the wiring fixing part wherein the wiring fixing part is detachably connected to the bottom face side of the placement part where the stated limitations are not suggested in addition to not being anticipated or taught in combination with the remaining limitations of independent claim 10 upon overcoming the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. The remaining claims are allowed due to their dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Franco et al (US 20260043818 A1) - The present invention is related to the industry dedicated to biomedical systems that use analysis methods based on microfluidic technology.
Takahashi et al (US 20240192244 A1) - The present invention relates to an automatic analyzer that analyzes a concentration or the like of a predetermined component in a sample such as blood or urine (hereinafter, referred to as a sample), and more particularly to an automatic analyzer capable of automatically carrying in and out a reagent used for analysis.
Ishioka et al (US 20220113329 A1) - The present invention relates to an automated analysis device capable of obtaining measurement information on various analysis items by processing a sample (analyte) such as blood or urine with various reagents, and by measuring the processed sample.
Konishi et al (US 10330604 B2) - The present invention relates to an automated analyzer automatically analyzing a component contained in a biological sample such as blood and, in particular, to a technology for an automated analyzer including a plurality of analysis ports that include a light source radiating light to an analysis target and a detector detecting the light radiated from the light source.
Ootani et al (US 20070172390 A1) - The present invention relates to analyzing apparatus, in particular, to an analyzing apparatus including a container transferring section for transferring a reaction container accommodating a reaction sample prepared by reacting a specimen and a reagent, and an analyzing apparatus a solid-liquid separation device and a solid-liquid separation method for using a reagent having magnetic particles as a solid phase.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMAINE L JENKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2179. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-3 EST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/J.L.J/ Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855