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 without traverse of claims 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 11-13 and 15 in the reply filed on 7/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4, 10, and 14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/2026.
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.
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(s) 1-3, 6, 8, 9, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Inaba et al (US 20130143234A1) in view of Talley et al (US 6133043)
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Inaba et al teach a sample analyzer comprising:
a channel configured to introduce a sample liquid containing magnetic particles bound to a specific substance into a capturing region (Fig. 15: flow channel 15);
a supply unit configured to supply the sample liquid to the channel (Para. 0070-0071; Fig. 9: tube 21);
a capturing unit having a magnetic field structure for generating a magnetic field and configured to adsorb the magnetic particles to the capturing region by the magnetic field (Para. 0052; Fig. 5: capturing position 13) ;
a measurement unit configured to measure the specific substance captured to the capturing region (Para. 0055; Fig. 9: photodetector 39) ; and
a discharge unit configured to discharge the magnetic particles from the channel after measurement by the measurement unit (Para. 0046; Fig.9: tube 22),
wherein the magnetic field structure includes a plurality of magnets arranged outside the channel (Fig. 5: 11a and 11b),
the plurality of magnets being arranged so as to make a magnetic flux density on a channel side larger than a magnetic flux density on a side opposite to the channel (Fig. 9 shows the magnetic particles attracted to the bottom and not the top), and
the plurality of magnets are arranged so as to make a magnetic flux density on a downstream side of the channel larger than a magnetic flux density on an upstream side of the channel in a space in the channel above the capturing region (Fig. 9: shows the magnetic particles attracted to the capture region 13 "downstream side" and not the upstream side of the capture region 13). Specifically regarding claim 15, Inaba teach the magnetic flux channel on a bottom surface of the channel constituting the capturing region (Fig. 9: bottom surface of the channel constituting the capture region 13).
Inaba is silent to the plurality of magnets having different magnetization directions.
Talley et al teach configuring two or more magnetic field sources, the resultant magnetic field is wider relative than that of a single magnetic field source and the magnetic field gradient is compressed, the flux density is increased without significantly extending the magnetic field above the detection surface (Talley Fig. 7; col. 9 lines 30-45: opposing poles, two or more magnets).
Regarding claim 2, Inaba/Talley teach the plurality of magnets are arranged so as to make magnetic fluxes generated by two adjacent magnets intensify each other in at least a part of the capturing region. (Talley: Fig. 7; col. 9 lines 30-45: opposing poles, two or more magnets intensify each other)
Regarding claim 3, Inaba/Talley teach the plurality of magnets are arranged in parallel in a direction in which the sample liquid flows in the channel, and the sample liquid passes above all the plurality of magnets. (Inaba: Fig. 5, Para. 0093: 11a and 11b made parallel to the flow channel 15 by arranging the N-pole and S-pole in a horizontal direction)
Regarding claim 6, Inaba/Talley teach the plurality of magnets include three or more magnets (Talley: Fig. 7; col. 9 lines 30-45: two or more magnets reads on "three or more")
Regarding claim 8, Inaba/Talley teach the plurality of magnets are arranged so as to make an interval between two adjacent magnets smaller than a width of any of the two adjacent magnets. (Inaba: Fig. 5: two adjacent magnets interval is smaller than the width).
Regarding claim 9, Inaba/Talley teach the plurality of magnets are arranged so as to make two adjacent magnets face each other with surfaces having shapes to be fitted to each other (Inaba: Fig. 5: flat surface provides a shape for two magnets to be fitted to each other).
Regarding claim 11, Inaba/Talley teach the plurality of magnets include a permanent magnet. (Para. 0093, 0136: permanent magnets)
Regarding claim 12, Inaba/Talley teach the plurality of magnets include an electromagnet. (Para. 0085, 0136: electromagnet).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba/Talley in view of Chang-Yen et al (US 2009/0053799).
Regarding claim 13, Inaba/Talley teach different electromagnets (Fig. 8: 12a and 12b), electromagnets, or permanent magnets (Para. 0093). Inaba is silent to the plurality of magnets -include a permanent magnet and an electromagnet or -include a permanent magnet made of a first material and a permanent magnet made of a second material.
Chang-Yen et al teach a trapping magnetic sorting system using an plurality of magnets to capture magnetic particles (Abstract). The external magnet or system of magnets can be combinations of permanent and electromagnetic magnets (Para. 0053). It is desirable to provide different magnets to provide the desired magnetic field to capture the magnetic particles at desired locations. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is held to be obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the combination of permanent and electromagnetic magnets of Chang-Yen et al to the device of Inaba/Talley to provide the above advantage of providing the desired magnetic field to capture the magnetic particles at desired locations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS MICHAEL WHITE whose telephone number is (571)270-3747. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Maris R. Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/Dennis White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1758
Prosecution Insights