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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-10 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 line 9 of claim 1, the phrase “each unit” lacks antecedent basis since no components of the automatic analyzer are positively recited as “units”. Lines 10-13 in claim 1 are indefinite since it is not clear how the control unit “allows” the cleaning liquid in the reservoir to be drawn into the flow path and then “allows” system water to be supplied to the reservoir since no physical components are recited in claim 1 to perform these functions. Therefore, it is not clear what the control unit controls in order to draw the cleaning liquid from the reservoir into the flow path and to allow system water to be supplied to the reservoir. Claim 3 is indefinite since it is not clear how the control unit forms an air layer between the cleaning liquid and the system water since no physical component in the automatic analyzer is recited for performing this function. Therefore, it is not clear what the control unit controls in order to form the recited air layer. The “air layer” recited in claim 3 is also indefinite since it is not clear where this air layer is located in the automatic analyzer. Is the air layer located in the flow path immediately below or outside of the reservoir? On line 5 of claim 4, the phrase “discharges the cleaning liquid to an outside of the reservoir” should be changed to –discharges the cleaning liquid from the dispensing probe to an outside of the reservoir—so as to provide further clarification. On lines 3-6 of claim 6, the phrase “the control unit suctions at least a part of the system water by the dispensing probe and discharges the cleaning liquid to an outside of the reservoir ” is indefinite since it appears that it should be the system water being discharged to an outside of the reservoir in this phrase because claim 6 recites that the control unit suctions at least part of the system water by the dispensing probe when the system water in the reservoir is replaced with the cleaning liquid. Claim 7 is indefinite since it recites a “waiting time until cleaning of the dispensing probe”, but does not define a reference time at which the waiting time begins. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if the waiting time is longer than a predetermined threshold value. Does a waiting time for cleaning the dispensing probe begin when the dispensing probe is initially used in the automatic analyzer? On line 4 of claim 9, the phrase “the flow path” lacks antecedent basis since no flow path has been previously recited in claim 9. On the last line of claim 9, the step of “supplying system water to the reservoir” is indefinite since it is not clear when this step is performed. Is the system water supplied to the reservoir only after the cleaning liquid has been drawn out of the reservoir and into the flow path? Claim 10 is indefinite since it is not clear how the cleaning liquid stored in the flow path can be “sealed” by the system water in the reservoir. What allows this to occur in the method, and/or how does it occur? It is noted that the set of amended claims dated October 17, 2023 contains two identical claims labeled as claim 10. 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)(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. Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Horiuchi et al (US 2016/0069922, submitted in the IDS filed on May 1, 2025). With regards to claim 1 , Horiuchi et al teach of an automatic analyzer 1000 for analyzing a sample comprising a dispensing probe configured to dispense a sample or a reagent (see paragraphs 0029 , 0032, and 0040, and the dispensing probes attached to each of the sample dispensation mechanism 11 and the reagent dispensation mechanism 7 depicted in Figure 1 of Horiuchi et al), a reservoir 101 configured to reserve a cleaning liquid used to clean the dispensing sample and reagent probes, wherein the cleaning liquid comprises a detergent (see the detergent reservoir 101, which is a part of a detergent reservoir unit 13, depicted in Figure 2 of Horiuchi et al, also see paragraphs 0037-0039 in Horiuchi et al), a flow path comprising paths 104 and 118 and waste liquid tank 119 connected to the reservoir 101 through which the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent) flows (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0039 in Horiuchi et al), and a control unit 20 that controls the dispensing probes and the detergent reservoir unit 13, wherein the control unit 20 allows the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent) in the detergent reservoir 101 to first be drawn into the flow path 104 /118/119 by opening the solenoid valve 105 and then to be stored in the waste liquid tank 119 of the flow path when the solenoid valve 105 in the flow path is closed, and then allows system water to be supplied to the reservoir 101 from the cleaning liquid tank 112. See paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0072-0073 in Horiuchi et al, particularly paragraphs 0072-0073 where it states “Subsequently, the cleaning of the detergent reservoir 101 and refilling of the detergent are performed in steps 9 to 15. Specifically, the mechanism control unit opens the solenoid valve 105 to dispose of the detergent in the detergent reservoir 101 (step 9). Subsequently, the mechanism control unit 20 closes the solenoid valve 105 and supplies the cleaning liquid from the cleaning liquid supply port 102 (step 10). Specifically, the mechanism control unit 20 operates the pump 114 feeding the cleaning liquid from the cleaning liquid tank 112 to the detergent reservoir 101. The mechanism control unit 20 lets the supplied cleaning liquid overflow from the detergent reservoir port 120 to clean an inner wall of the detergent reservoir 101 (step 11)…”. The cleaning liquid in the cleaning liquid tank 112 comprises pure water or ion-exchange water (see paragraph 0042 in Horiuchi et al). With regards to claim 2 , Horiuchi et al teach that the control unit 20 draws the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent ) into the flow path 104/118/119 so that a liquid level of the cleaning liquid is located below an upper end of the flow path . Specifically, when the solenoid valve 105 is opened, the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent) flows through the path 104 into the path 118 and the waste liquid tank 119, and then when the solenoid valve 105 is closed to allow water to enter into the detergent reservoir 101, a liquid level of the detergent in the path 118 below the valve 105 is below an upper end of the path 104. See paragraph 0072 and Figure 2 in Horiuchi et al. With regards to claim 3 , Horiuchi et al teach that the control unit 10 forms an air layer between the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent) and the system water since when all of the detergent in the detergent reservoir 101 is flowed from the reservoir 101 through the flow path 104/118 and into the waste liquid tank 119, an air layer exists in the flow path 118 between the detergent in the waste liquid tank 119 and the water in the detergent reservoir 101. See paragraph 0072 and Figure 2 in Horiuchi et al. With regards to claim 4 , Horiuchi et al teach that before drawing the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent) into the flow path 104/118/119, at least part of the cleaning liquid in the reservoir 101 is suctioned by the dispensing probe and the discharged from the probe to an outside of the reservoir. See paragraph 0040 in Horiuchi et al. With regards to claim 7 , Horiuchi et al teach that the control unit 20 draws the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent) into the flow path 104/118/119 and supplies system water to the detergent reservoir 101 when a time until cleaning of the dispensing probes in the analyzer is longer than a predetermined threshold value. See paragraphs 0074-0075 in Horiuchi et al. With regards to claim 9, Horiuchi et al teach of a method for controlling an automatic analyzer 1000 comprising drawing a cleaning fluid (i.e. a detergent) used for cleaning a dispensing probe and located in a detergent reservoir 101 into a flow path 104/ 118/119 that is connected to the reservoir 101, storing the cleaning fluid in the lower portion of the flow path 118 and in the waste liquid tank 119 portion of the flow path, and supplying system water from a cleaning liquid tank 112 into the reservoir 101. See the explanation for claim 1 above, Figures 1 and 2, and paragraphs 0037-0042 and 0072-0073 in Horiuchi et al. With regards to claim 10 , Horiuchi et al teach that the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent) stored in the f low path 104/ 118 /119 is sealed by the system water supplied to the detergent reservoir 101 since water supplied to the reservoir 101 would cover any cleaning liquid located in the upper portion 104 of the flow path. 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) 5-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiuchi et al (US 2016/0069922, submitted in the IDS filed on May 1, 2025). For a teaching of Horiuchi et al, see previous paragraphs in this Office action. With regards to claim 5 , Horiuchi et al fail to specifically teach that the control unit 20 supplies the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent) to the reservoir 101 and overflows the detergent from the reservoir 101 before drawing the detergent into the flow path 104/118/119. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the control unit 20 in the automatic analyzer taught by Horiuchi et al to supply the detergent to the reservoir 101 and overflow the detergent from the reservoir 101 before drawing the detergent into the flow path 104/118/119 because Horiuchi et al teach that it is possible to overflow a liquid contained in the detergent reservoir 101 into a waste liquid bath 107 (see Figure 2 and paragraph 0073 in Horiuchi et al), and by allowing detergent supplied to the detergent reservoir 101 to overflow into the waste liquid bath 107 prior to drawing the detergent into the flow path 104/118/119 , any detergent contaminated by a previous dispensing probe dipped into the detergent for washing can be eliminated from the reservoir 101 . With regards to claim 6, Horiuchi et al fail to teach that the control unit 20 suctions a part of the system water by a dispensing probe when replacing the system water with new cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent), and then discharges the system water from the dispensing probe to an outside of the reservoir 101. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform such actions in the automatic analyzer taught by Horiuchi et al because Horiuchi et al teach that the detergent itself can be disposed from the reservoir 101 in such a way using a dispensing probe (see paragraph 0040 in Horiuchi et al), and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could also be expected to use this alternative way of disposing of the system water located in the reservoir 101 when it is desired to replace the water with new cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent). Wit h regards to claim 8 , Horiuchi et al fail to teach that the threshold value used to determine an appropriate time for drawing the cleaning liquid (i.e. the detergent) into the flow path 104/118/119 and supply the system water to the detergent reservoir 101 is set according to a type of the cleaning liquid. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the threshold value for determin ing an appropriate time for drawing the cleaning liquid (i.e. the detergent) taught by Horiuchi et al into the flow path 104/118/119 and for supply ing the system water to the detergent reservoir 101 according to a type of the cleaning liquid because different types of cleaning liquids degrade at different rates over time , thus dictating when it is an appropriate time to replace the cleaning liquid (i.e. detergent) in the detergent reservoir 101. 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 detects a change in a washing water amount; Mori et al (US 2020/0348325) who teach of an automatic analyzer that limits the amount of detergent needed to wash a dispensing probe; Minami et al (US 2024/0230701) who teach of an automatic analyzer which improves an accuracy of a cleaning liquid amount discharged from a cleaning nozzle towards a dispensing probe to be cleaned; and Sakashita et al (US 2014/0037503) who teach of an automatic analyzer that performs cleaning of an inner and an outer surface of a dispensing nozzle. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Value for firstName-middleName-lastName?" \* MERGEFORMAT MAUREEN M WALLENHORST whose telephone number is FILLIN "Insert your individual area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT (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, FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s name." \* MERGEFORMAT Lyle Alexander , can be reached at telephone number FILLIN "Insert your SPE’s area code and phone number." \* MERGEFORMAT 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 March 13, 2026