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 .
Claim Interpretation
In claim 1, without “configured to” or “programmed to” recited language between the control device and the claimed operation, the limitations “a control device that controls whether the door can be opened or closed” and “the control device prohibits opening of the door when there is a sample for which analysis has not been completed inside the analysis unit, a measurement result obtained by the internal environment data acquisition device falls within a range of predetermined internal environment specifications, and a measurement result obtained by the external environment data acquisition device falls outside a range of predetermined external environment specifications” have been given their broadest reasonable interpretation and thus interpreted as an intended use of the control device.
Although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (see MPEP 2111). The current claim limitations do not require the control device to actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. Thus, a prior art controller need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasao (JP 2009109410 A).
Regarding claim 1, Sasao teaches “An automatic analysis device that analyzes a sample” (Para [0001], apparatus for analyzing a sample liquid) “to be analyzed to acquire inspection data,” (Para [0001], improving measurement accuracy and work efficiency and improving safety when attaching and detaching a chip.); “the device comprising:
an analysis unit that analyzes the sample” (Para [0022] FIG. 1 is a perspective view showing a schematic configuration of the sample liquid analyzer 100.); “within a region defined by a partition wall;” (Fig. 1a, walls around the sample liquid analyzer 100);
“an internal environment control device that controls an environmental state inside the analysis unit;” (Para [0022], A measuring device 3, a temperature adjusting device 4 mounted at a lower portion of the base 1 in the vertical direction to share the internal space with the base 1 and adjusting the temperature inside the device to be constant.). Therefore the temperature of the internal device is an environmental state of the inside of the analysis unit which is controlled by the temperature adjusting device.
Further taught by Sasao “an internal environment data acquisition device that measures the environmental state inside the analysis unit;
an external environment data acquisition device that measures an environmental state outside the analysis unit;” (Para [0215] As a second configuration, if the opening / closing window 60 is opened when the temperature difference between the outside air and the inside of the base 1 is large, the temperature change inside the base 1 becomes large, which is not preferable for measurement. A temperature sensor for measuring the difference is provided, and when it is determined based on a sensor signal from the temperature sensor that the temperature difference from the outside air is equal to or more than a predetermined value, locking is performed by a lock mechanism.);
“a door” (Para [0125], One side of the opening / closing window 60 and the opening frame of the opening 5 a are rotatably joined by two hinges 62.); that is provided at the partition wall (Para [0125] and Fig. 22a and b, light shielding cover 5 is part of the housing which has the opening/closing window.);
“separating the inside and outside of the analysis unit and allows access from the outside to the inside of the analysis unit; (Fig. 20 and 22a and b, Para [0125], As shown in FIG. 22B, the light-shielding cover 5 has an opening 5a through which the microchip 200 is inserted and removed. As shown in FIGS. 22A and 22B, an openable and closable window 60 that covers the opening 5a is attached to the opening 5a.); and
“a control device” (Para [0128], As shown in FIG. 24, the control board 300 includes a CPU 302 for controlling the calculation and the entire system based on the control program, a ROM 304 in which a control program of the CPU 302 is stored in a predetermined area in advance, and data read from the ROM 304 or the like.); “that controls whether the door can be opened or closed, wherein the control device prohibits opening of the door” (Para [0215], Thus, when the temperature difference from the outside air is large, the opening / closing window 60 cannot be opened, so that a large temperature change can be prevented.); when there is a sample for which analysis has not been completed inside the analysis unit, (Para [0214] Further, the following two configurations can be adopted for the lock mechanism. In the first configuration, when light enters from the outside at the time of measurement, the measurement accuracy of the measurement sensors 31a and 31b is reduced. Therefore, when measurement is performed by the measurement sensors 31a and 31b, locking is performed by the lock mechanism. Thus, since the opening / closing window 60 cannot be opened during the measurement, it is possible to prevent a decrease in the measurement accuracy.).
Sasao does not explicitly teach prohibiting opening of the door when ”a measurement result obtained by the internal environment data acquisition device falls within a range of predetermined internal environment specifications, and a measurement result obtained by the external environment data acquisition device falls outside a range of predetermined external environment specifications.
However, as mentioned above, Sasao further teaches control board 100 as a programmable computer component. Thus, control board 100 is capable of prohibiting opening of the door when a measurement result obtained by the internal environment data acquisition device falls within a range of predetermined internal environment specifications, and a measurement result obtained by the external environment data acquisition device falls outside a range of predetermined external environment specifications, since control board 100 controls the system based on a control program (Para [0128]).
Regarding claim 3, Sasao teaches all of claim 1 above in addition to “wherein the environmental states measured by the internal environment data acquisition device and the external environment data acquisition device are at least one of a temperature, a humidity, an atmospheric pressure, and a brightness.” (Para [0215], Thus, when the temperature difference from the outside air is large, the opening / closing window 60 cannot be opened, so that a large temperature change can be prevented.).
Regarding claim 5, Sasao teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “wherein the control device prohibits opening of the door when there is a sample for which analysis has not been completed inside the analysis unit, (Para [0214] Further, the following two configurations can be adopted for the lock mechanism. In the first configuration, when light enters from the outside at the time of measurement, the measurement accuracy of the measurement sensors 31a and 31b is reduced. Therefore, when measurement is performed by the measurement sensors 31a and 31b, locking is performed by the lock mechanism. Thus, since the opening / closing window 60 cannot be opened during the measurement, it is possible to prevent a decrease in the measurement accuracy.) and further teaches “and a difference between the measurement result obtained by the internal environment data acquisition device and the measurement result obtained by the external environment data acquisition device falls outside a range of predetermined difference environment specifications.” (Para [0215], Thus, when the temperature difference from the outside air is large, the opening / closing window 60 cannot be opened, so that a large temperature change can be prevented.).
Sasao does not explicitly teach prohibiting opening of the door when “the measurement result obtained by the internal environment data acquisition device falls within the range of the predetermined internal environment specifications” However, as mentioned above within claim 1, the current claim limitations do not require the control device to actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. Thus, a prior art controller need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
Sasao teaches the control board 100 as a programmable computer component. Thus, control board 100 is capable of prohibiting opening of the door when a measurement result obtained by the internal environment data acquisition device falls within a range of predetermined internal environment specifications, since control board 100 controls the system based on a control program (Para [0128]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasao (JP 2009109410 A) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Kurono et. al. (US 20130084212 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Sasao teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “wherein when the control device prohibits opening of the door” (Para [0215], Thus, when the temperature difference from the outside air is large, the opening / closing window 60 cannot be opened, so that a large temperature change can be prevented.); “the control device permits opening of the door” (Para [0009], Opening of An opening / closing sensor for detecting the opening and closing, and when it is determined that the opening / closing window is opened based on the detection result of the opening / closing sensor, a rotation inhibiting means for inhibiting rotation by the first rotating means or the second rotating means. Is provided.).
Sasao teaches a door in which can’t be opened during measurement within Para [0214] but does not explicitly teach “in at least one case among a case where the environmental state measured by the external environment data acquisition device falls within the range of the external environment specifications, a case where the environmental state measured by the internal environment data acquisition device falls outside the range of the internal environment specifications, or a case where all inspections for the sample inside the analysis unit have been completed.”.
However, without “configured to” or “programmed to” recited language between the control device and the claimed operation, the limitation above do not require the control device to actually operate in accordance with the recited functions. Thus, a prior art controller need only be capable of operating in the claimed manner (see MPEP 2114(IV)).
However, Kurono teaches a sample processing apparatus in addition to “in at least one case among a case where the environmental state measured by the external environment data acquisition device falls within the range of the external environment specifications, a case where the environmental state measured by the internal environment data acquisition device falls outside the range of the internal environment specifications, or a case where all inspections for the sample inside the analysis unit have been completed.” as it teaches where the door is open when all the inspection for the sample inside the analysis unit have been completed (Para [0005], A first aspect of the present invention is a sample processing apparatus for processing a sample, comprising: a sample processing unit comprising a moving mechanism and configured to perform a sample processing operation by moving the moving mechanism; a cover configured to cover the moving mechanism of the sample processing unit; a lock mechanism configured to lock the cover to prevent the cover from being opened; and a controller configured to control the lock mechanism, wherein the controller is configured to set either of a first mode and a second mode, wherein in the first mode, the cover is kept locked after the sample processing unit has completed the sample processing operation until an instruction to unlock the cover is received from a user, and in the second mode, the cover is automatically unlocked after the sample processing unit has completed the sample processing operation.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sasao to incorporate the teachings of Kurono wherein the door is opened when all inspections for the sample inside the analysis unit have been completed. Doing so would allow the door to remain closed during analysis as taught within Kurono.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasao (JP 2009109410 A) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Jang et. al. (US 20160187362 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Sasao teaches all of claim 1 above but does not teach “wherein the same range is set for the internal environment specifications and the external environment specifications.”.
Jang teaches a test apparatus and method for controlling the same in addition to “wherein the same range is set for the internal environment specifications and the external environment specifications.” (Paras [0015], [0153], and [0154], The controller may compare at least one of the estimated temperature and humidity of the reaction device with a predetermined reference value, and determine whether the estimated at least one of temperature and humidity of the reaction device is within a reference range. The test process controller 124 of the test apparatus 100 may determine whether a current external environment is appropriate for test execution based on the external temperature and humidity information. For example, if at least one of the external temperature and the external humidity exceeds a reference range appropriate for testing, the test process controller 124 may prevent the test from being executed, and may inform a user that a current external environment is unsuitable for testing. Alternatively, if only one of the internal temperature and humidity of the test apparatus 100 exceeds a reference range appropriate for the testing, the test process controller 124 may prevent the test from being executed, and may inform a user of a current internal environment and why it is unsuitable for testing.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sasao to incorporate the teachings of Jang wherein the internal and external specifications have the same range. Doing so would prevent the testing from being executed if both the internal or external ranges are outside the limits as taught within Jang. This ensures the testing is not performed when the environment is unsuitable for testing as also taught by Jang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VELVET E HERON whose telephone number is (571)272-1557. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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 on (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.
/V.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/JYOTI Mutreja/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights