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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species A, the detector being a pressure sensor, in the reply filed on 06/04/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 3 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application, with claims 1-2, 4-14 being examined and claim 3 being withdrawn pursuant to the election filed 06/04/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites “the control unit eighter controls” where it appears that “eighter” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 4-14 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.
Claims 2, 4-14 all recite “The device” in the preamble, where there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. It is unclear what device is being referred to as claim 1 is directed to an automatic analyzer and no other device has been recited.
It is suggested to amend claims 2, 4-14 such th1at they recite “The automatic analyzer
Claim 5 recites “and detects abnormality” where to make it clear that the abnormality in claim 5 is referring to the abnormality described in claim 1, claim 5 should be recited to be “and detects the abnormality”
Claim 6 recites “once stops” which is unclear what is meant by “once” and whether the control unit only stops the pump once when detecting abnormality.
Claim 11 recites “rotation number” which is unclear what is meant by “number”. According to the specification, the pump has a variable rotation speed.
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(s) 1-2, 5-8, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (WO-2018/055931-A1) mapped using Hara (US-2020/0225254-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hara teaches an automatic analyzer (automatic analyzer 100) comprising ([0023], Figure 1):
a water supply tank (water storage unit 201) ([0043], Figure 2);
a supply path (cleaning flow path 106) connected to each mechanism of the automatic analyzer (100) from the water supply tank (201) ([0043], [0045] see cleaning flow path feeds cleaning water to reagent probes and sample probes, the probes being mechanisms of the automatic analyzer, Figure 2);
a pump (cleaning pump 20) which supplies water to the each mechanism from the water supply tank (201) through the supply path (106) ([0043], [0044], Figure 2);
a detector (pressure sensor 102) which detects abnormality in the supply path (106) ([0043], [0046], Figure 2);
a waste liquid path (return flow path 105) branched from the supply path (106) in a branched portion provided in the supply path (106) ([0043], Figure 2);
a relief valve (throttling unit 101) provided in the waste liquid path (105) ([0043], [0074] see proportional solenoid valve for the throttling unit 101, Figure 2); and
a control unit (controller 21) which controls operation of the each mechanism in the automatic analyzer (100) ([0032], [0050] see control unit 103 is disposed in the controller 21, therefore processes completed by the control unit 103 are done by the controller 21, Figure 1), in which
the control unit (21) opens the relief valve (101) while driving the pump (20), based on the abnormality in the supply path (106) detected by the detector (102) ([0057]-[0064] describe an automatic pressure adjustment when the analyzer 100 is activated where in [0058] the pressure of the cleaning pump 20, which is a supply source of the cleaning water, is measured where if the pressure is sufficient it moves on to activating the gear pump 34 and opening the throttling unit 101, [0098] which describes that the adjustment can also be adjusted from the fully closed state).
One skilled in the art would find it obvious that the cleaning pump 20 will continue to be driven so as to continue to supply the gear pump 34 with cleaning water as the adjustment process continues.
Regarding claim 2, Hara teaches the device according to claim 1. Hara further teaches in which
the detector (102) is a pressure sensor which detects pressure in the supply path (106) ([0046]).
Regarding claim 5, Hara teaches the device according to claim 4. Hara further teaches in which
at a time of preparing operation for analysis, the control unit (21) automatically opens the relief valve (101) when the detector (102) monitors a state of a flow in the supply path (106) and detects abnormality ([0064] see when the discharge pressure P and the adjustment target pressure Pm are not equal, the control unit performs the adjustment of the opening and closing degree of the throttling unit 101, [0098] where it describes that the proportional solenoid valve may also be adjusted from the fully closed state. Therefore in [0064] when the pressure is not equal (abnormality detected) the throttling unit 101 will be opened).
Regarding claim 6, Hara teaches the device according to claim 5. Hara further teaches in which
the control unit (21) once stops the pump (20) when detecting the abnormality in the supply path (106) and drives the pump (20) again after opening the relief valve (101) ([0059]-[0060] describes where the control unit 103 determines if the discharge pressure of the cleaning pump 20 falls within a range of a specification upper limit and lower limit to determine if there is an abnormality in the pressure of the cleaning pump, where if the pressure is within the specified range it proceeds in the process, and if not it will display an alarm on the display and the automatic analyzer 100 is stopped).
One skilled in the art would find it obvious that after an abnormality is detected and the automatic analyzer is stopped (thus stopping the pump when an abnormality is detected), that the analyzer may be started up again to drive the cleaning pump 20, and in the instance where no abnormality is detected then it will proceed to activating the gear pump 34 and the throttling unit may be opened depending on the pressure reading ([0098] where it states that the proportional solenoid valve may be adjusted from the fully closed state). The cleaning pump 20 is understood to continue to circulate liquid as the adjustment process takes place (opening of the throttling unit).
Regarding claim 7, Hara teaches the device according to claim 1.
Figure 2 of Hara is understood to be a schematic of the various components, where one skilled in the art would find it obvious to rearrange the position of the throttle such that it is arranged at a position lower than a bottom surface of the water storage unit in a vertical direction because shifting the position of the throttling unit will not modify the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 VI.C).
Regarding claim 8, Hara teaches the device according to claim 1.
Figure 2 of Hara is understood to be a schematic of the various components, where one skilled in the art would find it obvious to rearrange the bottom surface of the water storage unit such that it is arranged at a position higher than a center position of a suction port of the cleaning pump in a vertical direction because shifting the position of either the water storage unit or the cleaning pump would not modify the operation of the device (see MPEP 2144.04 VI.C).
Regarding claim 10, Hara teaches the device according to claim 2. Hara further teaches in which
the control unit (21) monitors a pressure value in the supply path (106) detected by the pressure sensor (102) and automatically adjusts the pressure value based on a fluctuation of the pressure value ([0063], [0064], [0098]).
Regarding claim 11, Hara teaches the device according to claim 10. Hara further teaches in which
the control unit (21) adjusts a pressure by making a rotation number of the pump (20) variable ([0057]-[0059] where it is understood that by starting the automatic analyzer, the control unit starts the pump 20 where the rotation number of the pump is variable from the on state to off state which adjusts the pressure sensed by the sensor 102).
Regarding claim 12, Hara teaches the device according to claim 11. Hara further teaches in which
the control unit (21) automatically adjusts the pressure value when the pressure is not returned to a set range after air vent ([0064], Figure 5 which shows a pressure adjustment flowchart similar to that seen in Figure 3 where if the pressure measured from the gear pump is deviated from the target pressure it moves to calculate a differential pressure to determine if the proportional valve is adjusted by fine or rough adjustment, and after this step the process goes back to measuring the gear pump pressure and if it needs further adjustment. One skilled in the art would find it obvious that the process seen in Figure 5 can be applied to that seen in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 13, Hara teaches the device according to claim 12. Hara further teaches further comprising
a display unit (display unit) which performs various display for an operator of the automatic analyzer (100) ([0036] see result is displayed on a display unit, which is not illustrated in Figure 1), in which
the control unit (21) eighter controls the display unit (display unit) to display alarm when the pressure value is not returned to the set range after performing the automatic adjustment of the pressure value, or stops the operation of the automatic analyzer.
One skilled in the art would find it obvious that after performing the adjustment described supra in reference to Figure 5 that the automatic analyzer would be capable of starting up a new process after completing the adjustment where the pressure is measured for the cleaning pump 20, and based on [0060] if the pressure is not within the specified range it will display an alarm on the display unit and the automatic analyzer 100 is stopped.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (WO-2018/055931-A1) mapped using Hara (US-2020/0225254-A1) and as evidenced by Doebelin (US-2010/0037919-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hara teaches the device according to claim 1. Hara further teaches in which
the relief valve (101) is an electromagnetic on-off valve ([0074] describes the throttling unit 101 is a proportional solenoid valve, [0098] describes that the proportional solenoid valve is not limited to adjustment from the fully open state and can also be adjusted from the fully closed state).
The proportional solenoid valve being adjusted from a fully closed state to an open state therefore makes the proportional solenoid valve an on-off valve.
It is evidenced by Doebelin that a solenoid valve is a valve that is actuated by an electromagnet (Doebelin; [0017]) and therefore the solenoid valve of Hara is an electromagnetic on-off valve.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (WO-2018/055931-A1) mapped using Hara (US-2020/0225254-A1) and in view of Kuroda (US-2012/0003731-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Hara teaches the device according to claim 8.
Figure 2 of Hara does show the water storage unit 201 that is connected to cleaning pump 20, however it is not clear if water is supplied to the pump from the bottom surface of the water supply tank.
In the same problem solving area of tanks holding washing water that are connected with a pump, Kuroda teaches where a tube is seen in Figure 4 to be positioned in the tank where when the pump is activated it will draw water from the bottom surface of the tank (Kuroda; [0071], Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the analyzer of Hara such that the connection between the water storage unit 201 and pump 20 is accomplished by a tube where the tube is inserted into the water storage unit as taught by Kuroda because it is taught by Kuroda that this is an effective way of moving water from a tank using a pump (Kuroda; [0071], [0073]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, the closest prior art of record is Hara (WO-2018/055931-A1) mapped using Hara (US-2020/0225254-A1). Hara does teaches the device according to claim 11. However, Hara does not teach the control unit detects abnormality of the pump, the pressure sensor, and the relief valve, according to the pressure value after the automatic adjustment and a control value for driving the pump.
The abnormality of the pump, the pressure sensor, and the relief valve is understood to be a different abnormality from the abnormality in the supply path as described in claim 1.
It would not be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the control unit of Hara such that based on the pressure value after the automatic adjustment and a control value for driving the pump it detects an abnormality of all three of the cleaning pump, the pressure sensor, and the throttling unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA LYLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9856. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 M-Th.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at (571)272-1234. 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.
/S.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MELVIN C. MAYES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights