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 1-9 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 6-7 of claim 1, the phrase “a controller configured to cause the detector to perform a detection during cleaning by the cleaner” is indefinite since it is not clear whether the detection performed by the detector during cleaning by the cleaner is a detection of the cleaning fluid being used to clean the probe. On line 7 of claim 1, the phrase “a state of the cleaner” is indefinite since it is not clear what constitutes being a “state of the cleaner”, and what property or parameter of the cleaner that this phrase refers to. Without knowing what the “state of the cleaner” is in the automatic analyzer, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to practice the invention, or know whether they are infringing on the invention or not.
On lines 6-7 of claim 7, the phrase “a controller configured to cause the detector to perform a detection during cleaning by the cleaner” is indefinite since it is not clear whether the detection performed by the detector during cleaning by the cleaner is a detection of the cleaning fluid being used to clean the probe
On line 3 of claim 9, the phrase “the predetermined range” lacks antecedent basis since claim 9 depends from claim 7, and claim 7 does not positively recite a predetermined range for the position of the probe. In order for this phrase to have proper antecedent basis, claim 9 should depend from claim 8.
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)(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) 1-2, 4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Minami et al (US 2024/0230701).
With regards to claim 1, Minami et al teach of an automatic analyzer (see title and the abstract of Minami et al) comprising a probe 111b configured to perform sucking and discharging of a liquid (see Figures 1 and 2, and paragraph 0027 in Minami et al), where the probe 111b includes a liquid level detector 210 configured to detect contact with a liquid (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0029 in Minami et al), a cleaner 113 configured to clean an outer wall of the probe 111b with a cleaning fluid 300 (see Figures 3 and 4, and paragraphs 0029 and 0033-0035 in Minami et al), and a controller 501 configured to cause the detector 210 to perform a detection during cleaning by the cleaner 113 and judge a state of the cleaner based on a result of the detection, wherein the state of the cleaner judged comprises an amount of a cleaning liquid provided from a cleaning liquid facility or a storage area to the cleaner 113 via a supply pump 208, valves 215, 216 and 217, and a flow channel 218 (see Figure 3 in Minami et al). Specifically, the controller 501 causes the probe 111b to first be lowered vertically into the cleaner 113 at a position 301 that intersects with a flow of a cleaning fluid 300 being introduced into the cleaner 113 from a cleaning nozzle 202. The detector 210 detects when the probe 111b first contacts the cleaning fluid 300 at an upper position height Z1 of the cleaning liquid flow 300 at the first position 301. The controller 501 then horizontally moves the probe 111b to a second position 302 that also intersects with a flow of the cleaning fluid 300 being introduced into the cleaner 113 from the cleaning nozzle 202, and causes the probe 111b to be lowered vertically into the cleaner 113 at the second position 302. The detector 210 detects when the probe 111b first contacts the cleaning fluid 300 at an upper position height Z2 of the cleaning liquid flow 300 at the second position 302 (see Figure 4 and paragraphs 0033-0036 in Minami et al). The controller 501 calculates a difference (Z1-Z2) between the upper end position of the cleaning liquid flow 300 detected at the first position 301 (height Z1) and the upper end position of the cleaning liquid flow 300 detected at the second position 302 (height Z2), and determines or judges that the cleaning liquid amount dispensed from the cleaning nozzle 202 is decreased when the difference is equal to or greater than a reference value. Thus, the controller 501 in the automatic analyzer is able to judge a discharging state of the cleaning liquid which could be too small during cleaning of the probe 111b due to clogging of the flow channel 218 or deterioration of the pump 208, or could be too large that causes water droplets to remain at the tip of the probe 111b after cleaning. See Figures 3-4 and 6, and paragraphs 0003, 0007-0008, 0035-0036, 0043, and 0047-0048 in Minami et al.
With regards to claim 2, Minami et al teach that the controller 501 detects a position in a vertical direction of the cleaning fluid 300 by vertically moving the probe 111b. See Figure 4 and paragraphs 0033-0034 in Minami et al.
With regards to claim 4, Minami et al teach that the controller 501 detects a position in a horizontal direction of the cleaning fluid by horizontally moving the probe 111b. See Figure 4 and paragraphs 0033-0034 in Minami et al.
With regards to claim 6, Minami et al teach that the controller 501 performs a maintenance of the cleaner 113 based on a state of the cleaner, wherein the state of the cleaner is a cleaning liquid amount dispensed from the cleaning nozzle 202. When it is determined that the cleaning amount of the cleaning liquid dispensed from the cleaning nozzle 202 is decreased relative to a normal amount, the controller 501 determines that an adjustment or increase in the cleaning liquid amount is necessary and increases an opening degree of the adjustment valve 215 that allows a flow of cleaning liquid from a source to the cleaning nozzle 202. See Figure 3 and paragraph 0048 in Minami et al.
With regards to claim 7, see the above description of Minami et al for claim 1. In addition, the controller 501 of the automatic analyzer taught by Minami et al also judges a position of the probe based on a result of the detection by the detector 210 since the detector 210 serves to detect a contact of the probe 111b with the cleaning liquid 300 dispensed from the cleaning nozzle 202. When the detector 210 detects that the probe 111b contacts the cleaning liquid 300 at height Z1, the detector judges the position of the probe 111b at the first position 301, and when the detector 210 detects that the probe 111b contacts the cleaning liquid 300 at height Z2, the detector judges the position of the probe 111b at the second position 302. See Figure 4 and paragraphs 0033-0036 in Minami et al.
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) 3, 5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minami et al (US 2024/0230701). For a teaching of Minami et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action.
With regards to claims 3, 5 and 8, Minami et al fail to teach that the automatic analyzer sends a notification when the position in either the vertical direction or the horizontal direction of the cleaning fluid is outside a predetermined range, or when the position of the probe is outside a predetermined range. However, 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 when the position in either the vertical direction or the horizontal direction of the cleaning fluid is outside a predetermined range, or when the position of the probe is outside a predetermined range in the automatic analyzer taught by Minami et al because automatic analyzers typically send alarms in either a visual or an audible form to notify users of when the analyzers are not performing as expected so that adjustments can be made or the analyzers shut down for maintenance.
With regards to claim 9, Minami et al fail to teach that the controller 501 adjusts the position of the probe 111b when the position of the probe is outside a predetermined range. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the position of the probe 111b taught by Minami et al when the position of the probe is outside a predetermined range because if the probe 111b is not in either of the first position 301 or the second position 302 (i.e. the predetermined range) depicted in Figure 4 of Minami et al, the cleaning liquid amount being used to clean the probe 111b cannot be properly determined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please make note of: Horie et al (US 2022/0299539) who teach of an automatic analyzer that improves the adjustment accuracy of a washing fluid amount; Kitamura et al (US 9,989,549) who teach of an automatic analyzer with a washing unit configured to wash an external surface of a probe; Semachi et al (US 2024/0264190) who teach of an automatic analyzer comprising a probe with a detector configured to detect that the probe is in contact with a liquid and a controller configured to detect that a liquid droplet adheres to the probe; Onoki et al (US 2021/0181224) who teach of a method and a device for performing a biochemical analysis of a specimen which comprises a nozzle inside a piercer, wherein the nozzle comprises a detector for detecting if the nozzle contacts a droplet of a sample or reagent located inside the piercer; and Maruyama et al (US 2014/0186234) who teach of an automatic analysis device comprising a cleaning unit with a first and a second cleaning position of a probe using first and second cleaning liquids.
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 June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights